[36500] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kyle C. Bacon)
Mon Apr 9 18:30:41 2001
To: mike harrison <meuon@highertech.net>
Cc: "John K. Doyle, Jr." <John.Doyle@oracle.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <OFF1C279D4.BEA5A390-ON85256A29.007A6FA7@fnsi.net>
From: "Kyle C. Bacon" <kbacon@fnsi.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:20:40 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>>It seems a poor reasons for acquiring a company, as they
>>really do not "own" the address space. --Mike--
That is an interesting comment, has anyone ever heard of ARIN
revoking IP's from a entity who no longer meets current ARIN
criteria for a give size allocation? Or is it infact the
case that once you get the IP space as long as you keep paying
for it you get to keep it? in essence you do "own" it as long as
you keep the capitalist portion of ARIN happy and pay your annual
IP bills? (no offense to those ARIN workforce members among us).
K
mike harrison
<meuon@higher To: "John K. Doyle, Jr." <John.Doyle@oracle.com>
tech.net> cc: nanog@merit.edu
Sent by: Subject: Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
owner-nanog@m
erit.edu
04/09/2001
06:07 PM
John said:
> Well, you could acquire a company that already has one. :)
That has been the suggestion from several people.
I've even considered it, especially when one of my local
competitors has a /18, and they are much smaller than we are.
We 'NAT' an incredible amount of dial-up and commercial customers
to reduce our need for public IP's, and trends thankfully went to
customers WANTING to be NAT'd and Proxied for 'firewall' reasons,
with only a few public IP's.
It seems a poor reasons for acquiring a company, as they
really do not "own" the address space. --Mike--
