[6180] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Internic address allocation policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jamie)
Tue Nov 19 01:15:59 1996
From: Jamie <jamie@dilbert.multiverse.com>
To: mjr@wacky.eit.com (Matt Ranney)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 01:07:15 -0500 (EST)
Cc: web@typo.org, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199611190400.UAA30571@wacky.eit.com> from Matt Ranney at "Nov 18, 96 08:00:01 pm"
Reply-To: jamie@multiverse.net
> Wayne Bouchard writes...
> >
> > Heartily agreed.. Its far far easier to get address space when you've
> > got the docs to prove you need it and you've allocated
> > intelligently. They require you to justify need, why shouldn't you
> > require customers requesting multiple class Cs to justify need?
>
> Do larger providers have to play by the same rules, or do they all
> still have so much extra space from the pre-CIDR days that it doesn't
> matter? I ask because I know of at least one BBN customer that less
> than a year ago was assigned 3 /24's for their 30 machine network.
Net99 gave one aquaintance of mine a /22 when he asked for one /24
(back when they were net99)
I also know of another friend of my other half :) who was given a "B",
and, yes boys and girls, he has a dialup account. Of course, this was
in '89 or '90.. but he's still got that SLIP :)
> --
> Matt Ranney - mjr@eit.com
>
> This is how I sign all my messages.
--
jamie g. k. rishaw | jamie@multiverse.com | home e-mail:jamie@arpa.com
url-free sig file | corporate support svcs. | "I had a dream .. there was
corp: 216.771.0002 |"religious right" is neither| an info-mercial selling an
C4 48 1B 26 18 7B 1F D9 BA C4 9C 7A B1 07 07 E8 | awk script for $29.95" -rdm
