[4071] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: wait a minute here
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kim Hubbard)
Thu Sep 5 17:47:46 1996
From: Kim Hubbard <kimh@internic.net>
To: vixie@wisdom.home.vix.com (Paul A Vixie)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 17:25:19 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <9609052021.AA00904@wisdom.home.vix.com> from "Paul A Vixie" at Sep 5, 96 01:21:10 pm
>
And I guarantee that if you receive address space from the InterNIC, it
will be larger than a /32 :-)
Kim
> Someone just wrote me and said:
>
> > I would be happy to remove a lot of out /24's if the NIC would allocate a
> > larger than /32 to renumber into. The NIC does not thing this is as
> > important.
>
> According to what I know of InterNIC's policies, they will be glad to trade
> aggregated address space for unaggregated space, _in_roughly_equal_parts_,
> and assuming that you have efficiently used your old space.
>
> It's not that InterNIC doesn't consider this important -- rather than they
> are not in the routing business and the routability of addresses is not one
> of the criteria they can look at when making allocations.
>
> So don't put it to them in terms of routability, just SWIP your suballocat-
> ions and write a nice polite letter showing how some parts of the world will
> be better off and no part of the world will be worse off if prefixes X and Y
> are returned to the pool in exchange for prefix Z (of size ~X + ~Y).
>
> If you do _that_ and are told to go pound sand, I'd like to hear about it.
> But I know people who have successfully done what I'm suggesting so I really
> do not expect you to fail.
>
