The Big Squeeze
kimh at internic.net
Mon Mar 3 00:03:34 UTC 1997
> On Sunday, March 02, 1997 4:15 AM, Nathan Stratton[SMTP:nathan at netrail.net] wrote:
> @ On Sun, 2 Mar 1997, Sean Donelan wrote:
> @ Number of routes, I know of 2 ISPs that we provided access to that were
> @ mad because the nic gave them /19 and not /18. The providers are now out
> @ of business and there are 2 /19 not being used, but at least they are not
> @ /18. If the provider did get larger the nic would have gladly taken back
> @ the /19 and given them a /18.
> If there were regional IP registries that had an economic incentive
> to reclaim those 2 /19s, then those would be recycled and reused.
> If you accept that people are going to fail, then you have to plan
> in advance for taking allocations back, or better yet, not renewing
> the lease. This happens in real estate with office space all the
> Many buildings do not fragment their space because they have
> a hard time leasing small spaces. Again, there are economic
> and market-based reasons for this. It would be nice if the same
> could be said for IP addresses.
> The ARIN discussions (http://www.arin.net) focus on some
> of these topics.
Actually, the ARIN mailing list is not the place to discuss this, the
PAGAN list is. I do agree that something needs to be done to begin
recapturing unused space, especially from those organizations no longer
in business. This issue was raised in the IRE/PAGAN BOF at the last
IETF and needs to continue being seriously discussed.
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
> JimFleming at unety.net
> JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)
More information about the NANOG