[1632] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kim Hubbard)
Sat Jan 27 14:52:50 1996
From: Kim Hubbard <kimh@internic.net>
To: forrestc@imach.com (Forrest W. Christian)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 14:51:15 -0500 (GMT-0500)
Cc: davidc@apnic.net, smd@icp.net, cidrd@iepg.org, matthew@scruz.net,
nanog@merit.edu, vbono@hq.mai.net, matthew@nic.scruz.net,
davidc@teckla.apnic.net
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960127040013.11560A-100000@iMach.com> from "Forrest W. Christian" at Jan 27, 96 04:08:03 am
>
>Instead we're making all our customers renumber into the /18
>block we succeeded in finally wrestling away from the internic by
>agreeing to returning over an /18's worth of ip address space.
In your initial request to the InterNIC you stated you were going
to return the /18 to your upstream provider. This was your idea.
If you didn't want to do it than why did *you* suggest it?
You obviously had your reasons for wanting your customers to renumber,
but implying that the InterNIC forced you to do this is totally
incorrect as you know. Would you like me to forward you a copy of the
request to refresh your memory?
Kim
