scottw at internic.net
Wed Feb 2 16:06:04 UTC 1994
I agree that we must be careful. However, we must setup guidlines that
have a technical basis. If we are to achive efficent CIDRization of the
address space then we can not give CIDR blocks to anyone who says
they are a provider. I don't think that we have ever denined anyone
address space. The complaint from Kansas was a person that requested
space for Kansas's network and was given a block of 512 through MIDNET.
MIDNET was the provider at the higher level. Now he wants to be a provider
for himself connected to ???. I understand that the look of what is
currently the NSFnet will change. What if tommorow I want to become a
provider and request MY block of 256. I think we must ask the questions
and make a smart allocation. Souldn't the provider to which he will
connect be involved in the allocation? I understand that anyone should
be able to switch providers at any level. I would assume that the block
could go with them.
> > I have asked the question many time. "What is a provider?". Once the
> > CIDR allocation started the "Providers" came out of the woodworks.
> > No one so far has given an answer to the question that the majority can
> > agree with. I will not be at the regional tech meeting in CA but Mark will.
> > I don't know a group better suited to answer the question that established
> > providers. Do us a favor and come up with a proposed answer to "What is a
> > provider". I will work with NSF and Postel to make it policy. This would
> > make our life easier.
> I think we have to be very careful here. When we make policy that
> adversely affects someone's business interests we're just begging for
> a suit. Especially with the *perceived* "shortage" or IPv4
> addresses. It seems to me that it would be very difficult to exclude
> anybody from the category of "provider" (for the purpose of giving
> him or her addresses) who has even the flimsiest claim to being one.
> Perhaps some sliding scale based on demonstrated need would work.
> But it would have to be conservative (liberal?) and easily quantified
> to make it defensible.
More information about the NANOG