[1512] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Li)
Thu Jan 25 02:39:54 1996
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 23:30:19 -0800
From: Tony Li <tli@cisco.com>
To: forrestc@imach.com
Cc: postel@isi.edu, nanog@merit.edu, cidrd@IEPG.ORG, iepg@IEPG.ORG,
iab@isi.edu, iesg@isi.edu, iana@isi.edu, netreg@internic.net,
ncc@ripe.net, hostmaster@apnic.net
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960124191950.28471A-100000@iMach.com> (forrestc@imach.com)
Forrest,
5) When we go to get our new /18 block sometime in 1997, We're going to
be asked why we need an /18 block. I'm going to have to try to convince
the internic that the /18 block is necessary as a longer prefix isn't
routable, and that we deserve to get a year or two's worth of allocation
up front because of how tightly our existing block is packed.
You seem to presume that your request will be denied. In fact, given
that you can demonstrate excellent address space utilization and growth,
and are multihomed, I would expect folks to grant your request for a /18.
Whether this is from the NIC or from one of your providers is another
question entirely....
To be more specific, the RIPE NCC has been using a policy such that it will
(at most) grant a prefix one bit shorter than the prefix that has been
used. Under this policy, it would be reasonable to ask for a /17, tho I'm
not saying that you necessarily can prove the growth to support it.
Tony
