Internic address allocation policy

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

I'm having a problem getting the Internic to allocate additional IP
addresses to us. I'm looking for feedback (public or private) from others
who may have had this problem that I can forward to my lawyers.

Scruz-Net recently merged with another company. As the new company, we
are in the process of deploying a large DS-3 based IP network, with
attachments to more than 5 major interconnect points. As such, we need
address space both for our backbone and our customers.

First, I tried to get address space for the new company. Response was that
under the slow-start policies, I could get nothing bigger than a /19.
Well, that's not interesting, because I'm not about to deliberately subject
myself to routing filters that I think make good technical sense (hello
Sprint).

So I turned around and said that the EXISTING company (scruz-net) needs more
address space. First off, we got told that because we didn't use our last
allocation (a /16) quickly enough (three months is their suggestion, took
us more like 9-12 months to fill it up, with careful assignment) we obviously
didn't need a block that big. (Now, since the point is to conserve routing
table size among us providers who carry full tables, isn't it better for me
to get a /16 and use it slowly than to get 4 unrelated /18's that each last
three months???)

So then I argued that since the merger has happened, and we have sales
projections that show that with a much larger geographic coverage and
hundreds of people out selling the product, we ought to be using addresses
a bit faster. That started a back-and-forth where I had to "prove" that
a merger had really occured, when I was in fact under legal requirements
to not talk about the merger until it was made public.

Now I guess they believe that, and they've fallen back on the argument
that I don't allocate addresses as well as they'd like. This is based on
looking at our rwhois data. Now, we have large numbers of customers with
small static blocks who don't really want their name and address listed
publically... and so we've listed those blocks as things like
w.x.y.z/24 -> "workgroup ISDN accounts in San Jose". But that apparently
doesn't satisfy whoever plays netreg@internic.net. In fact, upon reviewing
our customer policy about disclosure of customer information, we've had
to turn off our rwhois server entirely until we can go through and seriously
sanitize it.

All I want is some addresses so that I can continue to hook up customers,
allocate additional addresses to providers downstream of us who need more
addresses for *their* customers, and build a backbone network. But I've
been forced into getting our lawyers involved.

I never thought that getting another block of IP addresses would come to
that. *sigh*

Again, anybody who's figured out how to force the Internic to be
reasonable about address allocation, *please* drop me a note.

-matthew kaufman
matthew@scruz.net

2

I'm having a problem getting the Internic to allocate additional IP
addresses to us. I'm looking for feedback (public or private) from others
who may have had this problem that I can forward to my lawyers.

Lawyers will only cost you money, slow you down and accomplish nothing in
the end.

Now I guess they believe that, and they've fallen back on the argument
that I don't allocate addresses as well as they'd like. This is based on
looking at our rwhois data. Now, we have large numbers of customers with
small static blocks who don't really want their name and address listed
publically... and so we've listed those blocks as things like
w.x.y.z/24 -> "workgroup ISDN accounts in San Jose". But that apparently
doesn't satisfy whoever plays netreg@internic.net. In fact, upon reviewing
our customer policy about disclosure of customer information, we've had
to turn off our rwhois server entirely until we can go through and seriously
sanitize it.

Sounds like your company is suffering from a serious lack of knowledge
about IP allocation procedures and policies. The only solution to this is
to educate yourself, get your internal procedures and policies in order,
and integrate your knowledge of IP allocation procedures into your
planning processes.

All I want is some addresses so that I can continue to hook up customers,
allocate additional addresses to providers downstream of us who need more
addresses for *their* customers, and build a backbone network. But I've
been forced into getting our lawyers involved.

It's your own ignorance that created your problem and its your own
ignorance that is leading you to lawyers.

Again, anybody who's figured out how to force the Internic to be
reasonable about address allocation, *please* drop me a note.

For starters after reading your plans I can't see any reason why you
couldn't afford to spend $10,000 or $20,000 to get the IP addresses you
need. If you are willing to spend some money here's what to do.

Telephone the IP allocation folks at the Internic and ask to meet with
them in Virginia to explain what you need to do to get IP addresses and
ensure smooth allocation of addresses in the future. Don't even mention
the specifics of what has happened in the past and do *NOT* ask for
addresses. Ask for a meeting. Tell them that a technical person and a
management person (CEO) will be at the meeting. Once the date and time is
arranged, fly to Virginia, sit down, listen, ask questions, take notes.

Be especially careful with the notetaking. For instance, if the Internic
person says "You have to one, two, thre, blah blah" you should confirm it
by saying "So if we one, two three, blah, blah that will meet this
requirement?". Throughout this meeting be friendly. Do not bluster or
threaten or yell or whine.

What if they won't meet with you? Then ask them where you can find out
this information. Where can you find a consultant to hire who knows.
Your intent on the phone call should be to determine who has the knowledge
to solve the problem (Internic person or consultant) and where you have to
go to meet with this person.

Be prepared to change your internal policies. Be prepared to thoroughly
document what you are using IP addresses for. Be civil.

Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com

3

By posting and bitching like this, you're sealing your fate in not getting
address space.

  Wait, WHICH BLACKLIST is he getting on? No, wait, you must
  mean that "by asking questions in a manner that makes it seem
  like the Internic is run by people who stole a government-provided
  sole-source database and now extort money from commercial industry
  to pay for its maintenance, you are opening up a can of worms"?

  Maybe you mean "Matthew, we know you're clueful, but by being
  negative, you'll PISS OFF the Internic, and THEY WON'T PLAY
  with you despite their charter, mission, govt. contract, etc.

  Now, don't get me wrong. I'd love to have the Internic pissed
  off at me just as much as the next guy. I just hate to see people
  (like Matthew, who's been around for a while) being told to
  "shut up or you'll _never_ get what you want."

  Ehud

4

You don't understand. The IP allocation people at the Internic get jerked
around every day by sleazy people who lie about their IP allocations and
do whatever they can to manipulate more IP addresses out of them. The
Internic asks you to prove that you have responsibly allocated the IP
addresses they gave you. This requires that they *TRUST* your evidence.
Trust is the key here. The more you behave like the sleazy bastards with
stories about the big investor with $7 billion ready to spend starting
next month, the less they trust you.

Build up a strong trust relationship with them and you will get much
further than by whining. You can build that kind of relationship with
honesty and integrity in your reporting of IP address usage. And knowing
that you need this to grow, you should make sure that internal policies
and customer contracts do not disallow you from releasing that
information.

If this puts you between a rock and a hard place, then give your customers
an ultimatum. Either sign a release for the info, or find another
provider. Every contract has an out in it somewhere and if a $10,000 per
month customer is preventing you from becoming a multi-million dollar
company, then dump them.

That's business.

I would guess that if you are up front with the customer about the reason
you need to release the info to the Internic you are not likely to have
a problem with them.

And BTW, I don't know Matthew or anyone else at scruz.net. I have
absolutely no knowledge of their operations or their history. My messages
are directed to the list in general rather than Matthew and scruz.net in
particular because I think there is an important lesson here for other
ISP's to learn that will prevent them grief down the road. It will likely
make the Internic IP allocation job easier too.

Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com

5

Again, anybody who's figured out how to force the Internic to be
reasonable about address allocation, *please* drop me a note.

By everybody who I've talked to and the intuitions I have personally
perceived as well, the method being used is bribes. Only thing is,
since bribes aren't legal, you have to be a rather experienced bribe
maker. Perhaps you have to bribe a briber?

This, folks, is why we all hate the allocation policies of the Pigs
That Fly (excuse me, make that SAIC, er, Internic). This isn't
leftists looking for something to quarrel about (if so, where is all
our support from them?!); this is real stuff.

6

Michael,

Thank you for your note. It explains a lot to me and likely others.
It also resembles the way SRI-NIC.ARPA used to do business.

Perhaps it confuses me to see unknowns jumping into place calling
SCRUZ-NET an unknown entity when it's run by people whom so many
people *DO* know. Just ask Jim Haynes <haynes@cats.ucsc.edu>. These
people aren't randoms.

Well, sorry, Jim, I don't mean to be volunteering you, but the point
is how can honesty be questioned? It seems to superfluous to me to
say that they have little honesty. In the name of reducing routing
tables Internic Inc. (what a name) has instead been increasing them!
If it were John Q. Doe <thisiscool@interthisiscoolnet.com.net.com.net>,
ok so ask for a plan and judge their honesty; John needs good service
too. But, when it's Matthew, I mean sheesh! We're not talking about
the admin of interthisiscoolnet.com.net.com.net here. Some of
SCRUZ-NET's customers have been major international news before
(remember NAZIs and Germany and Compuserve and censorship?) It's not
like they don't exist. As little as I like the NAZIs, I like the
ability to keep track of their pulse so I know when to take cover and
shoot.