Internic address allocation policy

ATM_Feel_the_Power joe at
Mon Mar 20 07:14:56 UTC 1995


More than a few providers expressed concerns.  The people present at that 
meeting deal with thses and other issues.  I think that anything that 
could impact the operation of the net would be fair game for discussion.  
Who knows I could be wrong.  At any point we are willing to work toward 
an imeadiate solution.  As I said before, we had some of the best minds 
in the world present at that meeting.  If we can't solve the problem 
shame on us.


On Mon, 20 Mar 1995, Sean Donelan wrote:

> >First off this is not about what Karl wants.  All NSP's are involved in 
> >this matter.  Karl does not have to prove that NET-99 is valid to the 
> >Nic.  The Nic knows this.  Their guidelines are in our opinion and the 
> >opinions of many outdated.  What we were talking about is how to change 
> >this.  Nothing more.  Groups like NANOG are where these talks take 
> >place. 
> I sat through the last NANOG meeting this came up.  While a few providers
> expressed concern about the current guidelines, they offered no hard
> evidence of problems at the meeting.  Since the mantra of the NANOG
> is it is an operations group, not a policy group; in the absence of
> any hard evidence of an current operational problem the NANOG didn't
> seem to be the correct forum for changing policy guidelines.
> --
> Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
>   Affiliation given for identification not representation

More information about the NANOG mailing list