Internic address allocation policy

Kim Hubbard kimh at internic.net
Tue Nov 19 19:28:52 UTC 1996


>
Matthew,

I do not think it's a good idea to get into the specifics regarding
your request on this list.  I will email you privately so we may
continue this and hopefully work something out.

Kim


> Original message <199611191527.KAA14083 at jazz.internic.net>
> From: Kim Hubbard <kimh at internic.net>
> Date: Nov 19, 10:27
> Subject: Re: Internic address allocation policy
> > 
> > >
> > Matthew,
> > 
> > The InterNIC bases additional allocation blocks on efficient utilization.
> > We can only see the utilization from your SWIPs and RWHOIS info.  If
> > you refuse to supply contact information on your assignments, how can we
> > tell what your utilization is?
> > 
> > And as for the routing table overload, although the initial allocation
> > may be relatively small, it is almost always reserved from a larger block.
> > 
> > Bottom line, to receive additional address space all you have to do is
> > the same thing everyone else does - submit reassignment information.  You
> > don't have to fly out here, you don't have to be nice to me, just follow
> > the basic policies.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Kim Hubbard
> > InterNIC Registry
> > 
> 
> If you review the email exchanged between myself and netreg at internic.net
> you'll find that several other "requirements" have been put out there for
> me to meet. It isn't just "all you have to do is... submit reassignment
> information".
> 
> Furthermore, my mailbox is filling with stories from people who submitted
> reassignment information and were then told "sorry, you conserved addresses
> so well that you didn't even use a /19 in 3 months, so you don't get
> any more addresses" THAT sure isn't "all you have to do is... submit
> reassignment information"
> 
> My SWIP and RWHOIS data shows that over 90% of my address space is 
> allocated and lists contact information. There are only about 16 class C's
> where I've listed "subnetted for large numbers of 'workgroup' accounts",
> which is something like 3% of my total addresses. This exceeds, by far,
> the number of allocated addresses that show up via rwhois and swip for
> address blocks held by other providers who are not having problems
> receiving addresses.
> 
> Clearly the standards are not being applied equally, and the standards
> are preventing some people from engaging in this business.
> 
> -matthew kaufman
>  matthew at scruz.net
> 






More information about the NANOG mailing list