[1548] in North American Network Operators' Group
Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Karrenberg)
Fri Jan 26 05:18:47 1996
To: Hank Nussbacher <HANK@taunivm.tau.ac.il>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu, cidrd@iepg.org, iab@isi.edu, iesg@isi.edu, iana@isi.edu,
Local Internet Registries in Europe <local-ir@ripe.net>
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 26 Jan 1996 08:34:25 +0700.
<9601260638.HA22904@nikhefh.nikhef.nl>
From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 11:04:56 +0100
> Hank Nussbacher <HANK@VM.TAU.AC.IL> writes:
>
> A /19 in Amsterdam makes sense as a maximum allocation. A /19 in Uganda
> doesn't. I think due to different geographics we need to realize
> that allocation policy has to be different depending on where you are.
Hank,
you miss the point. It is *untenable* for the regional registry to get
into discussions about the size of the *initial* allocation. Therefore
a local IR in Uganda choosing to be served by the NCC will be allocated
a /19, no questions asked. The expectation is that they will not need
further allocations for a long time. But we have wasted a maximum of 8K
addresses. Once they need another allocation we will know their usage
rate, i.e. how long it took them to assign the first /19 and hence will
have a much more objective means to determine the size of their next
allocation.
For clarification: One *big* difference between the ItnerNIC and us is
that we ask a fee for registration services which discourages spurious
requests from individuals and/or very small providers.
Daniel
