Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

Tue Jan 30 00:47:43 UTC 1996

On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Alex.Bligh wrote:

> Ah. That will be the "chemical waste dump" that Daniel K said
> he didn't care about whether it got routed or not (no offence
> Daniel - neither do I), and is all but unaggregatable so presumably
> Sprintlink et al. won't want to waste their CPUs routing it as well.
> What hope for a customer with those IP numbers?

They all pay somebody (NSP X) for the following service.

NSP X announces an aggregate route, ???/8 or whatever, which Sprint and 
others *WILL* listen to. Then, NSP X reroutes traffic to all those 
different customers within it's own network. If NSP X needs to route 
through another NSP for some reason, then NSP X uses an IP tunnel to 
encapsulate the swampy address.

Of course, this may cost more than the swamp customers want to pay, or 
the swamp customers may not be able to agree enough to create a globally 
routable aggregate. In that case, they don't get routed. Hopefully they 
can be convinced to renumber and release the swamp addresses, thus 
filling in the swamp and allowing somebody to build a nice parking lot, 
mall and attached apartment buildings.

Michael Dillon                                    Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc.                                 Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com                             E-mail: michael at memra.com