Allocation of IP Addresses
rgm3 at is.chrysler.com
Mon Mar 18 14:09:36 UTC 1996
At 10:51 AM 3/15/96 +0900, David R. Conrad wrote:
>>Just a small quibble David: when you say "the IANA" decided, it gives
>>the impression that an august group of people like the IESG took action.
>I certainly would not intend to, nor do I think I did, give the
>impression that a group like the IESG took action. One of the
>advantages (and arguable disadvantages) of the current registry system
>is a lack of bureaucratic overhead of the type you thought I was
>>In reality "the IANA" is but a SINGLE person - John Postel.
>Actually, it is 2 people, Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds. However,
>note that the IANA is responsible to the IAB in the great Internet
>organzation chart in the sky.
>>people are upset I suspect it might be because the power to make such a
>>decision is vested in the hands of ONE person rather than in a group.
>My impression is that people are concerned that an organization with
>no track record and no customers (at this time) was able to obtain a
>highly coveted large block of space. Further, some people are
>concerned with the allocation of a subnet of a class A where an
>equivalently sized block in the class C space would have seemed
As I seem to recall, the @Home proposal (at least what I saw of it after the
fact) was for a potential 50 Million addresses. This definitely puts it out
of the range of a registry decision and moved it to IANA.
Those of us that were in the middle of the IPng address size debate had
predicted a request like this and have not supprise of the outcome.
BTW, there are 'rumours' floating around that China wants a couple of A's or
More information about the NANOG