[573] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 206.82.160.0/22
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Elz)
Tue Sep 26 20:05:42 1995
To: jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Cc: davidc@apnic.net, nmw@haven.ios.com, cidrd@iepg.org, nanog@MERIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 26 Sep 1995 15:50:30 -0400."
<9509261950.AA04633@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 09:59:24 +1000
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
Resent-From: nanog@MERIT.EDU
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 15:50:30 -0400
From: jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Message-ID: <9509261950.AA04633@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
From: David Conrad <davidc@apnic.net>
>> The category is self-determined by the organization.
Everyone's going to classify themselves as the smallest, then...
Not necessarily, this may actually be quite clever. Apart
from gih's vanity, which will tend to cause isp's to push
themselves into bigger classes, and jnc's $s, which will tend
to push them to smaller ones, there's also the issue of addr
allocations - an isp that claims to be "small" can hardly then
claim to need a /8 or even /16 or something, now can they?
That should mean, that in practice, an ISP can't claim to
be smaller than they are and still have available addresses for
new clients. Particlarly vane ISP's may still pay the higher
amounts, but as no statement has been made that connects the
size of the ISP to addr space allocations, there is no
obligation to give small ISP's with big egos lots of addresses.
Whoever (at RIPE I assume) dreamed up this scheme did a good job.
kre
