[8113] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Class "B" forsale (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Fleming)
Mon Mar 10 13:32:00 1997
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@unety.net>
To: "'Alex P. Rudnev'" <alex@Relcom.EU.net>,
"David R. Conrad"
<davidc@apnic.net>
Cc: "davidc@apnic.net" <davidc@apnic.net>, Len Rose <len@netsys.com>,
Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>,
"nanog@merit.edu"
<nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 11:55:03 -0600
On Monday, March 10, 1997 8:34 AM, Alex P. Rudnev[SMTP:alex@Relcom.EU.net] wrote:
@ Hi. It's not good idea to discusse _can we /NIC/ allow or can we
@ disallow_.
@ More interesting is _how to prevent address space wasting_ and _how to
@ prevent extra payements..._.
@
@ If you'll disallow class B selling, Internet would lost 256*256
@ addresses, because this class B network would be unused (and somebody
@ would use class C networks instead_. It's bad thing, isn't it?
@
@ On the other hand, if you'll allow free saling of the address space,
@ internet would be the homeplace of the big nabobs who can bye total
@ address space and break down small competitors (and even small
@ countries); it'll mean the deaths of the Internet, isn't it?
@
This is the case now...upstream providers are the "big nabobs"...
they do not incur the costs of renumbering, they do not get concerned
when they make a bid to a customer, they have the resources
to deliver. They may not have paid for these resources but they
have them...just check the records...
@ I do not know how would NOC go between this _scilla_ and _charibda_, but
@ it's one of this important questions the internet's future depends of.
@
@
Yes...some people feel this is a very important area....
unfortunately, the solutions being proposed favor the
"big nabobs"...
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
e-mail:
JimFleming@unety.net
JimFleming@unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)
