Internic address allocation policy
loco at aimnet.net
Sun Mar 19 14:54:16 UTC 1995
On Mar 19, 8:36am, Karl Denninger wrote:
> Yet, we were told to go stuff a year ago when we asked for the block, and
> instead have had to get four different smaller blocks of space from other
> sources. And we are not alone; I am personally involved with another
> NATIONAL provider who has been told to stuff more than once by these folks,
> and they consume addresses rather more quickly than we do.
> This sucks, and in addition, it is counter-productive. Announcing one
> aggregate beats announcing 4.
>-- End of excerpt from Karl Denninger
I have to agree with Karl & Joe (is this a first? :) Dealing with the InterNIC
for address space just takes more time than it should, IMHO.
In order to get our address space out of them I had to write over 10 pages of
justification and FAXed it to them, after our electronic requests were slammed
immediately. This got us 1/4 of the requested space which we're now reaching
the limits of only 2months after allocation.
I was actually just tossing the idea around of using the RFC 1597 (it's 6am, if
I'm wrong, I'm wrong) networks that "shouldn't be announced" to the outside
world for parts of our infrastructure. The only downside I can see is that DNS
will fail to function on that part of our network. The upside is that an
outsider has no chance of directly reaching internal routers. :-)
More information about the NANOG