[1923] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Ferguson)
Thu Feb 15 20:03:18 1996
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 19:50:26 -0500
To: Tim Bass <tbass@dune.silkroad.com>
From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com>
Cc: abc@gateway.com, cpayne@fiber.net, nanog@merit.edu
At 07:28 PM 2/15/96 -0500, The Heretic wrote:
>
>The use of terms like 'shameful' are really out of line when discussing
>ideas born from different perspectives. We all know that the continuing
>deployment of a hierarchical routing model for the Internet means more
>routers sold; big ISPs get bigger; etc. ad infinitum.
>
Okay -- perhaps ludicrous is a more apropos term.
Reality check: ISPs already force renumbering.
And as several people have already stated [deja vu, many times over],
this draft, if moved to BCP, has no teeth. It simply states that the
idea of address ownership is null and void, and Joe's ISP decides to
pull up stakes and move to another upstream provider [B] for whatever
reason, Joe should not be surprised when his [A] provider asks him
to return his address allocation so that its doesn't punch holes in
his CIDR block.
This makes sense to me.
- paul
