[47567] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP renumbering timeframe
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Mon May 6 13:41:43 2002
Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 10:41:09 -0700
From: David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>
To: <grant@tnarg.org>, nanog <nanog@merit.edu>
Message-ID: <B8FC0E45.A92B%david.conrad@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <200205061020.03864.grant@tnarg.org>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 5/6/02 10:20 AM, "Grant A. Kirkwood" <grant@tnarg.org> wrote:
> I'm sorry, but ARIN's policy practically _encourages_ the "efficient
> wasting" of space to qualify for PI space. This is one of the most
> frustrating things to deal with.
As someone who used to run a registry, one of the most frustrating things to
deal with was watching ISPs pee in their own pool and then scream at the
registries 'cause the water was yellow.
Just how big should the DFZ be?
Given the Internet is not (yet, at least) a fascist state, the registries
rely on ISPs to be aware of the environment in which they are operating. As
it is unlikely any of the registries will be hiring independent auditing
firms to verify true utilization, there is need for a certain level of
trust. If an ISP is too small to justify the allocation of a /20, then they
should obtain address space from an upstream provider so that they do not
add yet another entry to the DFZ.
The term "tragedy" in "the tragedy of the commons" is not a mistake...
Rgds,
-drc
