Rather than speak ONLY to the facts, Rodney can't resist some very nice
name calling and personal attacks because my criticism has obviously
offended him. And regardless of what an outsider to the internet might
think his motives were of course pure. Let
the record speak for itself and let the discussion be taken off line and
NANOG be returned to operational matters.
Here, in full, is what I published in my sept 97 issue.
On July 13 Rodney wrote privately to us but for publication: I've been
mulling over your request, and I'm not sure how best to answer it. One of
the misnomers about Genuity is that we're a start up. You'll actually find
that we were one of the 22 direct connects to the CIX router in Santa
Clara already in May of 1994, so I'd hardly call Genuity a start up.
Although we were certainly the smallest, or one of the smallest (Jamie
Saker out of Wisconsin at Synergy was probably a similar size), we were
very much in business before the Internet truly became mainstream.
Anyway, our early allocations were a couple of /24s, and then a 19/. We
had to plead with Kim Hubbard for another 19/, but were successful in
getting it only when we promised to be frugal in sub-allocations (she
didn't ask for empirical evidence). Then Genuity came in to being
(December 1995 when I sold 75% of the company to Bechtel).
At that stage, or soon after, things tightened up. We really didn't have
our act together as far as swipping address space that we had allocated to
customers, and we began to run out of space. At the NANOG held in DC in
1996 all of our pleading with Kim fell on deaf ears.... Justifiably on her
part (although at the time I felt a 2 x 4 was the best method of improving
her hearing). So I approached everyone I could for help, including Paul
Vixie and Jon Postel. Jon was very helpful, cuffing me around the ears and
telling me to go away and do what the NIC wanted everyone to do, and to
set an example. So, all of our Network Engineering staff got together, and
over the course of a week built all the audit tools needed, and SWIPd all
the addresses we had allocated, developed an ongoing plan and architecture
for allocating address space, then went back to Kim for more space.
Kim looked at the SWIP data, tested the integrity, and then agreed to
allocate us more address space in segments, but only if we agreed to
return the address space we already had if we wanted to get contiguous
space allocated (I am a big believer now in CIDR). We have stuck to this
religiously, and have only been turned down twice since then when we have
asked for more address space (we had to tighten up more of our sub
allocations). So we have not really seen any effect of RFC 2050 (I don't
think) because we were already being very conservative before it was
published. We maintain a very strict regime with our customers, and
actually, although our customers are all corporate users, we commonly
allocate /27s to them if they cannot justify more space.
Jon Postel as a
Genuity Board Member
You asked how Jon Postel came to be on our board. As far as I know, it is
the only board he sits on. He sits in one of my two board positions. He
helps me provide the Internet's view to the Bechtel side of the board, so
that the decisions they make are for the Internet, not against it. He
helps me lend weight to making sure that we help, not hurt. We've funded
well into 6 figures of software development through Vixie and Associates.
Jon helped make sure that the board understood that making the
applications 'freeware' and public domain was a 'good' thing. Hence
"Vulture" and " Vulture 2" and Turk, which are available from Vixie's home
page, and are used by many. Also we've ended up funding indirectly some of
the other stuff that Paul does, related to bind, etc.
Jon made it clear, as part of his involvement in our board, that his
connection with IANA etc would be one way - he would be looking for a flow
of help in the other direction only. We've sponsored ISOC at the fullest
level because of him, we provide significant services to ISI, JPL,
CalTech, and USC, and on the other hand we have disqualified ourselves
from opportunities where his influence might have helped (We will *not* be
applying/bidding to be one of the registrars in the new TLD world unless
it is clear that the decision making process can be shown demonstrably to
be untainted by any connection - currently unlikely).
The interesting thing is that Jon has helped make us a good net citizen in
an environment where one would believe that a privately held company with
very deep pockets could have instantly become a major force for the 'dark'
side.
You would have to ask Jon for his full motivation, but I will tell you
that you can spend as much time combing through the records as you want,
and you will see that all the apparent advantages have accrued on the
Internet's side. From our side, we have managed to build a solid business,
based on pretty strong morals and principles, and have attracted some
pretty good people who also appreciate the fact that we are able to
operate without having to look over our shoulders. Jon was instrumental in
this.
By the way, on the few occasions that I have asked Jon questions where he
felt a conflict, he has had no hesitation in telling me so. I have
respected that. I'd say that Genuity owes some significant part of its
success to being guided well by Jon in the good ways of the Internet. And
overall I think I can say that the net itself is a better place. [Editor:
Unfortunately, we did not recall, until we were going to press, that the
member of a Board of Directors of a corporation has a legal, fiduciary
reponsibility to that corporation. Thus, contrary to Rodney's assertion
about Jon's insisting that his membership not benefit Genuity, it could be
said that, if Jon had information about an action that he would take as
IANA, and he did not disclose it to Genuity, he might be acting in
violation of his legal, fiduciary responsibility to Genuity. If Jon served
on an advisory board, this liability would vanish. Unfortunately the web
page http://www.genuity.net/about_genuity/officers.html makes it very
clear he is a full member of the Board of Directors of the corporation. We
see this as one more example that, filled with good intentions as he may
be, Jon has gotten in over his head.]
