[32856] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brantley Jones)
Fri Dec 15 10:09:31 2000
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20001215090623.0344cb00@mail.nfusen.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:07:11 -0600
To: Jeff Mcadams <jeffm@iglou.com>, nanog@merit.edu
From: Brantley Jones <bjones@nfusen.com>
In-Reply-To: <20001215004609.A28266@iglou.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Welcome to the club. ARIN is commonly referred to by my peers as the "IP
Nazi's"...
Brantley
At 12:46 AM 12/15/2000 -0500, Jeff Mcadams wrote:
>Also sprach David R Huberman
> >> We're currently efficiently (according to ARIN's guidelines)
> >> utilizing a /20, 2 /23's and a /24. We apply to ARIN for space, and
> >> what do they say they'll give us? A /20. Period. Someone care to
> >> explain this to me?
>
> >It means you didn't explain your goals clearly enough, I guess.
>
>What is there to explain?
>
> >If you demonstrate to ARIN efficient utilization of 21 /24s (as you
> >describe above), you qualify for 32 /24s for renumbering purposes; a /19.
>
> >Go back and show them you've used 21 /24s efficiently and ask for
> >sufficient address space with which to renumber and grow your business.
> >You'll get a /19 every time.
>
>Hello...I'm using *more* than a /20 right *now*. If I had 100%
>efficient utilization of the IP addresses that we're using *today* I
>couldn't fit into just a /20. I can't come up with *any* logic that
>would make sense to renumber into a /20. This information was clearly
>spelled out on our application. If the folks at ARIN are too dense to
>add a few numbers together, you'd think they'd at least drop us an email
>or a phone call and ask a question or two! Sheesh! There is *NO*
>excuse for ARIN here, what they've done with us has *NO* rational
>explanation.
>--
>Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com
>Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848
>IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456
