[1814] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Miller)
Fri Feb 2 14:58:33 1996
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:29:09 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <david@dirigo.mint.net>
To: Howard Berkowitz <hcb@clark.net>
cc: Jon Zeeff <jon@branch.com>, bmanning@isi.edu, curtis@ans.net,
jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu, G.Huston@aarnet.edu.au, asp@uunet.uu.net,
cidrd@iepg.org, iesg@isi.edu, local-ir@ripe.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199602021548.KAA09058@clark.net>
On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Howard Berkowitz wrote:
> > > We are working on the 192.x.x.x swamp right now.
> > > Rough estimates (with much more accurate data @ NANOG)
> > >
> > > 60% - invalid or missing contact information
> >
> > This is interesting. How about a policy that says if nobody can contact you
> > and none of your addresses are reachable, then after some period, your
> > addresses get recycled.
> >
> >
> By addresses not being reachable, are you effectively saying that any
> enterprise that does not want to connect to the Internet must use
> RFC1597 address space?
>
> Anyone have an idea how much of the address space is used for
> registered addresses of organizations that do not connect to the Internet?
I would also be curious how the 60% missing is counted.
If an organization places 99% of their addresses behind a firewall do all
those not count?
Unfortunately, I don't think we can base much policy on whether or what %
of addresses are reachable from the internet.
--- David Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's *amazing* what one can accomplish when
one doesn't know what one can't do!
