Internic address allocation policy

Karl Denninger karl at
Sun Mar 19 16:53:33 UTC 1995

> Well, I see two problems, one is that whatever solution be found needs
> community consensus. Otherwise we may end up with ten anti-NICs or so?
> Or at least many unhappy customers?  The other problem is that (at
> least I, but may be I am missing something) don't see how at the global
> systems level this resolves the issue of appropriating address space
> to, say, a j-random, perhaps new and ignorant with uncertain future,
> service provider who would like to have 10,000 customers a year from
> now, and wants 10,000 Class-C numbers accordingly. I still don't
> understand what the groundrules for address allocation would be, at
> least at the level below your top-level allocations. Even if you push
> the problem a level down, it would still have to be resolved. The
> resource will be scarce somewhere.
> I am trying to focus on the IP address allocation guidelines here, not
> the speediness of registrations, with the latter being more of a
> technical (though apparently painful) issue, and probably a matter of
> having enough resources allocated.

Well, sure, the new ISP might want 10,000 Class "C" addresses.

But the new ISP has no basis to request these.  However, the CURRENT NIC is
declining requests for *256* Class "C" addresses!

That is, I was turned down for a Class "B" equivalent in a CIDR block.  That
is ludicrous.  Any reasonable regional ISP, large or small, is going to go
through that in a year.  And if you enforce a 75% usage requirement to get
more, then you've got something workable.

I would define "usage" as "has a routing entry active on the net".  Note
that this does have an honesty component, as, for example, we have part-time
networks connected via dial-up which are only routed when active.  But trust
me, we have issued what we asked for -- and that space IS being actively
used by real, live, paying customers.

The current arrogance of the NIC in asking for business plans and such is
absolutely out of line and acts in restraint of trade.  As such it has to go
away, and the only way to get a monster which thinks it is God under control
that works is to dice it up into smaller pieces, all of which KNOW they are 
not God.

Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900]     | (shell, PPP, SLIP, leased) in Chicagoland
Voice: [+1 312 248-8649]     | 6 POPs online through Chicago, all 28.8
Fax: [+1 312 248-9865]       | Email to "info at" for more information
ISDN: Surf at Smokin' Speed  | WWW:, gopher:

More information about the NANOG mailing list