ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?

Karl Denninger karl at
Sun May 17 15:02:27 UTC 1998

On Sat, May 16, 1998 at 11:14:46PM -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > agency).  Renumbering THEM would be a job out of the depths of Hades 
> > itself; even broaching the subject would likely cost us the account.
> I see. So if you tell the customer that they need to renumber, then they
> tell you to stuff it and switch to a new provider who... tells them that
> they must renumber out of your soon-to-be-reassigned address space.

Michael, you just love strawmen don't you?

If they renumber because of a change in provider, they KNOW IN ADVANCE that
this is going to be required and that they'll have to do it.  They also know
that they'll only have to do it ONCE.  There's a huge difference between
doing something out of choice and doing something out of FORCE.

Tell you what - when we force {Big Provider} to return a /16 to get a /15, 
return a /15 to get a /14, etc - then it will be FAIR.  Then everyone will 
have to renumber as they grow.  Then nobody will be at a disadvantage,
because everyone will be equally burdened (relative to size).

Why is it that the Worldcoms, MCIs, Sprints, etc of the world haven't rushed
forward to be the good citizens of the world, consolidating their route
tables dramatically (they ARE the biggest consumers) and do exactly this?

Answer THAT question and you'll be getting warm.

Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin          | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV
			     | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%!
Fax:   [+1 312 803-4929]     | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost

More information about the NANOG mailing list