[2045] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Allocation of IP Addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Browning)
Wed Mar 13 23:42:24 1996
From: Jim Browning <jfbb@atmnet.net>
To: "'David R. Conrad'" <davidc@apnic.net>,
Michael Dillon
<michael@memra.com>
Cc: "'com-priv list'" <com-priv@psi.com>,
"davidc@teckla.apnic.net"
<davidc@teckla.apnic.net>,
"'NANOG List'" <nanog@merit.edu>,
"'NIC Registry list'" <nic-registry@internic.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 20:14:50 -0800
>From: David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc@apnic.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 1996 6:50 PM
>
>>> Bullshit. The InterNIC is very much aware of global routing issues.
>>Then why have they not yet come up with a workable policy like the one
>>RIPE uses to release /16 blocks incrementally to new ISP's?
>
>All 3 registries have essentially the same policy with respect to the
>growth of new blocks. However, given InterNIC's load, the end effect
>may be different (remember, InterNIC receives approximately 50 new ISP
>requests per week -- how much space should they reserve for new ISPs?).
>
>>> What business issues are you talking about?
>>Basically, the market demand is INCREDIBLY HIGH and businesses want to
>>build up infrastructure to meet this demand but the Internic IP address
>>allocation procedures are too confusing and take too long.
>
>Your proposal is? If you say charging for address space, please
>explain what would stop deep pocket companies from buying up all the
>address space?
The answer is to have published, objective criteria, consistently applied,
with a defined appeal process and accountability. It's hard to play by the
rules if you don't know what they are, and one has only to look at the /14
allocation to @Home to realize that the "slow start" rules do not apply to
everyone equally.
--
Jim Browning <jfbb@ATMnet.net>
