North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Why does Sprint have address filters again?

  • From: Kim Hubbard
  • Date: Thu May 28 15:12:55 1998

> 
> On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 10:40:03AM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 1998 at 08:08:57PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > [ Karl asks a bunch of cogent questions and then scares the shit out of
> >   me by following up with: ]
> > > [This is a request as an ARIN AC member, who has tried to get a lot of 
> > > these kinds of questions answered from officers and trustees of ARIN]
> > 
> > Would it be out of line for me to ask why you are having so much
> > difficulty _getting_ answers to these questions that you need to ask
> > them here?  This whole ARIN thing is starting to smell somewhat like the
> > InterNIC does...
> 
> ARIN has asserted that individual members (and in fact individual AC members)
> don't have a right to have these types of questions answered.

ARIN has NEVER asserted that members or individuals have no right to
have these types of questions answered.  

To my knowledge, neither Karl nor anyone else that I can think of, has asked
ARIN any questions regarding it's involvement in Sprint's decision to
filter prefixes.   If someone is asking now, the answer is that the
registries (ARIN didn't even exist at the time Sprint began filtering)
had no involvement other than to request that Sprint lower their filters
from a /18 to a /19.  

Kim Hubbard
ARIN

> 
> It is my counter-assertion that IF ARIN is going to act as a custodian of
> an essential facility (which it is), in the public interest (which is
> currently open and in debate), that not only do the AC and membership have
> these rights, but the general public has the right to full transparency
> within ARIN's operation.
> 
> IMHO the network operators within ARIN's "sphere of influence" should 
> consider "waking up" and making their opinions known about this and related
> sets of issues having to do with IPv4 allocation.  
> 
> If there is a set of "affected organizations" which should be fully aware
> of and involved in this, its the NANOG group.
> 
> Two places to do so are "arin-members@arin.net", and "arin-council@arin.net",
> which are the mailing lists for the membership and AC, respectively.
> 
> Those who find themselves embargoed from posting to either are welcome to 
> ask me to forward material for them; as both an AC member, and an ARIN 
> member, I have the right to post to both.
> 
> The only way the questions will be resolved is if the debate is deemed
> important by those who are impacted by ARIN - which is, virtually without 
> exception, an intersecting set within the NANOG community.
> 
> It would also be a good idea to read the ARIN bylaws (available on their web
> site) and note carefully the lack of any real, functional oversight by the
> membership (ie: the membership cannot recall an AC member, a board member,
> or a corporate officer, either directly or indirectly).
> 
> Then surf over to the CIX web site and read THEIR bylaws.  Compare the two,
> and draw your own conclusions.
> 
> Both are, by the way, 501c(6) organizations.  
> 
> --
> -- 
> Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
> http://www.mcs.net/          | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV
> 			     | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%!
> Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
> Fax:   [+1 312 803-4929]     | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
>