[1817] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@ISI.EDU)
Fri Feb 2 15:20:59 1996
From: bmanning@ISI.EDU
To: curtis@ans.net
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 11:55:34 -0800 (PST)
Cc: bmanning@ISI.EDU, nh@ireland.eu.net, jon@branch.com,
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: <199602021943.OAA18515@brookfield.ans.net> from "Curtis Villamizar" at Feb 2, 96 02:43:23 pm
>
>
> In message <199602021407.AA25614@zephyr.isi.edu>, Bill Manning writes:
> >
> > There were a couple of methods suggested here:
> >
> > preemptive hijacking -
> > voluntary return -
> > periodic fees -
> >
> > Hijacking has a number of interesting problems
>
> Bill,
>
> There is no need to call it hijacking.
>
> If an organization registered an address they are responsible for
> keeping the contact name up to date.
The kicker is, where are they keeping the data?
InterNIC ?
DDNnic?
RIPEncc?
The problem is compounded with the InterNIC and the DDNnic
keeping authoritative data over the same space. Can you say
"SRI connected/unconnected database problems"... sure you can.
> This should help with the 60% that can't be contacted. Yes - I know
> this is work, so don't take this as a complaint that you are doing
> something you should be, just a suggestion for dealing with this
> problem.
In fact, that is exactly why a robot mailer is not a cureall.
The process followed is close to yoru description. Hence a
slower pace of progress than many would like. This swamp is
-deep-.
--bill
