Internic address allocation policy. (fwd)
Billy Biggs
ae687 at freenet.carleton.ca
Wed Nov 20 01:04:41 UTC 1996
On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> Even the private, behind the scenes, allocations
> made by the IANA, such as the @Home allocation which was not
> made based on SWIP information. How could it be? They did not even
> have customers, just a lot of venture capital and the "right" people
> on their staff.
>
> Regardless of whether the skids were greased on this allocation, the
> result is the right way to go..
>
> As a definite outsider to all this, it looks like much of 24/8 has
> been given out in /16../14 sized chunks to various cable operators,
> with lots of space in between them (some of them have room to expand
> to a /10 or /11...).
>
> The cable companies *do* have customers; they aren't IP customers
> (yet), but they *are* customers, and no doubt the cable providers have
> been able to demonstrate how many of their customers already have
> computers and access to the internet via modem and are thus realistic
> customers for the ip-over-cable system..
I still look forward to a future where every home has an IP address and I
thought cable internet access would bring that. However, up here in
Canada a new service from the cable companies is soon going to move to a
dynamic addressing system. The first reason they told me was that there
isn't enough IP space in the world.
Is it such a problem for them to purchase more IP space? There is room
for expansion in 24, so as far as I can tell if they expect more
customers than they have IP space for, they could purchase that space,
correct?
An article I wrote about the current problems with this new cable-modem
service is located at:
http://www.magi.com/~bill/linenoiz/LineNoiz-release-3.1.txt
--
Billy Biggs
ae687 at freenet.carleton.ca
More information about the NANOG
mailing list