Re: IAHC Philosophy

[Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net>]

> There were some fundamental objectives I had in mind when I formed the
> IAHC:
> 
> 1)  Insure the Internet would not become fragmented;
> 
> 2)  Create a system that would not hinder the Internet's continued growth,
> and, in fact, would facilitate it  -  in the fashion that it has thus far evolved;
> 
> 3)  Establish systems and/or "institutions" to insure the stability, security,
> professionalism, of Internet operations.
> 
> These are in addition to looking at adding iTLDs and registries. 
> 
> Much of the thread of the discussion on the iahc-discuss list has had to do
> with ideas/proposals/actions which could cause one or all of the above three
> fundamentals to be breached.
> 
> Today the Internet operates without barriers.  Anyone can be reached, period.
> There are no other requirement other than to have an IP address.

Nonsense.

Ask DIGEX customers about reaching AGIS.  Or AGIS customers about reaching
DIGEX.  Or, for a short while, AGIS customers who couldn't reach OUR sites!

We found a technical work-around.  But the root CAUSE is the "peeritis" that
some of the carriers have.  Look at that AGIS policy again, as an example,
and tell me how many Internet carriers today meet their criteria.

Then ask them how many they peer with.

When you figure out what discriminatory conduct has to do with this
(perfectly legal in many cases, but still a problem as it causes
DISconnectivity) then explain here why the IAHC isn't looking at the WHOLE
problem.

If you wish to claim you're addressing this issue for REAL then you need to
take on the WHOLE issue.  

BTW, this is just the beginning.  See Vint Cerf's recent statements
regarding MCI and their business philosophy changes that are coming to
your reseller soon.  If you think THAT won't be followed by changes in how
they exchange traffic, Don, you're smoking some really fine stuff over
there.

> I can see the possibility of the Internet becoming much like our existing
> city/state/country structure; that is, fragmented.  Unless we can reach
> broad consensus, we may find the Internet fragmented by which "system"
> we register under.  

You have several issues to address IF you're really interested in fixing
this:

1)	It is *ALWAYS* in your best interest to peer.  Why?  Because your
	customer paid you to connect to *everyone*, or at least this is how
	you're looking at it, right?  So by what right do you REFUSE as a
	carrier to make that interconnection?

2)	Address aggregation and non-portability are ALREADY causing
	discontinuities in connectivity.  This will get worse.  ISPs need
	absolute protection from illegal (as in anti-trust and anticompetitive
	practices) activities in this area -- being forced to continue to
	buy connectivity from a supplier UNDER THE PAIN OF RENUMBERING
	THOUSANDS OF CUSTOMERS is flat-out wrong.  Address that issue
	please.

3)	And yes, TLDs and DNS issues are in here too.  But they're lost
	in the noise of the above two issues.  

Why is the IAHC addressing 5% of the problem and leaving the other 95%
alone?  Is the IAHC *REALLY* working on the problem you claim it is?  Or is
the IAHC yet another organ interested in preserving monopoly interests and
keeping barriers to entry high (currently they aren't high -- they're
insurmountable)?

> ... would be invisible to other groups.

Its already happened, and it has nothing to do with the DNS system.  Address
the WHOLE problem or admit to your *actual* mission please.

> I believe that the overwhelming population of Internet users want a unified
> Net that is self-regulated, decentralized (except as noted herein), open,
> stable, secure, and with a sound economic basis in its operation.  I
> therefore believe, that anyone who tries to work against an _accepted_
> _system_, will simply be unsuccessful.
> 
> We have the basis of that desirable structure now.  Let's improve it, not
> co-opt or fragment it.
> 
> Don Heath

No we don't Don.  You and the others in the I* organizations have allowed
carriers to break connectivity THOUSANDS of times already for what they deem
to be competitive reasons.

Not *ONCE* have I seen a BCP or RFC copy that addresses any of THOSE issues.

Again, take on the whole game, or at least the majority of it, or drop the
smokescreen.

--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl     | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
			     | 33 Analog Prefixes, 13 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/
Fax:   [+1 312 248-9865]     | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal