[1566] in North American Network Operators' Group
Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Karrenberg)
Fri Jan 26 11:50:36 1996
To: Ronald Khoo <ronald@office.demon.net>
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 14:20:01 GMT.
<9601261420.ab08188@office.demon.net>
From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 17:34:03 +0100
> Ronald Khoo <ronald@office.demon.net> writes:
> You're trying to achieve a perfect policy that will work for all time
> when what we need is something to eke out IPv4 for the rest of its
> natural life.
I am not trying to achieve a perfect policy. I am an engineer both
by training and preference, not a policymaker.
What I am trying to do is to discuss proposals for policies which look
simple but break badly on already existing cases.
> By the time enough of your postulated ISPs have grown big
> enough AND THEN shrunk enough for this to matter in any practical sense,
> IPv4 will have become mostly static, and all of us here will have retired
> from active Internet Politics. I hope.
We are talking about real ISPs. If you check the address space usage
history of European local IRs, you will see that the growth in address
space usage of some has flattened a lot (I was not talking about
shrinking yet). Look in the area of national academic research
networks. Your simplistic scheme, if cast in stone, would do the very
wrong things for those.
Try again
Daniel
