[1551] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul A Vixie)
Fri Jan 26 07:08:20 1996
To: "Forrest W. Christian" <forrestc@imach.com>
Cc: "Robert A. Rosenberg" <hal9001@panix.com>,
Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net>,
Tony Li <tli@cisco.com>, postel@isi.edu, nanog@merit.edu,
cidrd@iepg.org, iepg@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 01:21:16 MST."
<Pine.LNX.3.91.960126011248.21388B-100000@iMach.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 04:00:48 -0800
From: Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com>
While I'm still trying to puzzle out why a message sent to this particular
list of exploders is different in any way from "spam," I'll jump in here:
> [...] Sprint's policy is unchangable) any IP numbers allocated with a prefix
> longer than /19 in 205 and /18 in 206 is essentially wasted space, which
> is unusable, at least if you want connectivity with sprint?
I've always assumed that Sprint's policy in this regard means that they do
not want to have complete connectivity. Why, in this day and age, anyone in
the transit business would not want to be able to resell 100% connectivity
to their customers, I do not know.
But it's Sprint's error and Sprint's problem. One assumes that after enough
"unrouteable" (by Sprint and only Sprint) prefixes are allocated, Sprint will
receive enough negative feedback from their customers that they (Sprint) will
have to revise this foolish policy.
Meanwhile let's not put the tail before the donkey -- this is Sprint's problem
and the wound, good doctors, was self inflicted. How many times will you let
the fact that Sprint is jumping in front of your car lead you to swerve to
avoid hitting them? Heck, if that's what they want, do it and get it over
with. Don't anybody change their routing or allocation policies just because
Sprint has odd routing policies.
Sprint != Internet. Fortunately.
