scottw at internic.net
Fri Oct 1 12:49:09 UTC 1993
> >Have you requested a block and had trouble?
> Well, ummm, yeah. We recently asked for a 256 address block of
> Class C space and was told to go to ANS for addresses. We've
> currently got a 256 block that's about used up, plus we obtained
> another 256 block for a customer of ours who had burned their B.
> We were asked to prove that we had used up both blocks (and proving
> that we had) were then told to go to ANS.
Service providers are coming out of the wood works. The size varies drastically
bringing up the question of what a service provider is with respect to CIDR. Jon
Postel and I have been discussing this issue and will try to better define
the guidelines. I am sorry that you got caught-up in that effort. I think
that Jim S. has contacted you to straighten this out. He was unaware that you
were multihomed based on your response to his questions.
> I can put in arguments here about supernetting, routing, and
> multihomed networks. It doesn't make sense to me for a network
> that is multihomed to have a portion of someone else's address
I agree. We have been asked to coordinate large allocation of blocks with
the next level service providers. In your case ANS and ???.
> We'd thought about just asking for a 1024 address block, but given
> our recent experiences (we really got grilled on the second 256
> block ["are you using those numbers"]), we decided not to even try.
Do you expect to grow enought to justify the allocation of 1024. If
so please send in the request and Jim will discuss it with you.
More information about the NANOG