[1917] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Ferguson)
Thu Feb 15 16:20:57 1996
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 16:09:49 -0500
To: "Alan B. Clegg" <abc@gateway.com>
From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com>
Cc: Carl Payne <cpayne@fiber.net>, nanog@merit.edu
At 03:23 PM 2/15/96 -0500, Alan B. Clegg wrote:
>
>How exactly does a larger address space ease deployment of an ISP?
>"Current thinking" of who? Sure we should conserve space, but that was
>not my argument. My argument is that small ISPs are *NOT* going to
>cooperate to get larger blocks. They use any tactic to make themselves
>out to be 'larger fish' in that network bowl. Ever seen a nasty catfight
>between small local ISPs? I have. Not pretty. Cooperation? Not likely.
>
This is exactly the type of mentality that the address ownership
draft addresses, and without the word 'mandatory' appearing anywhere
in the text.
This attitude of non-cooperation is shameful.
- paul
