North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Internic address allocation policy
YES. Setting up the SWIP and some other requirements might be expected but, as providers I think the line needs to be drawn somewhere. I mean there is a difference between the smaller isp and a network thats got millions of dollars invested. I know that other major nets have had problems as well. This problem just needs to go away. Joseph Stroup On Fri, 17 Mar 1995, Paul Lustgraaf wrote: > Does anyone but me agree that the Internic's current address allocation > policy is counter-productive? I've been trying for three weeks now to get > a block of addresses assigned to me for re-assignment to my customers. > I run the non-profit Internet in the whole state of Iowa and the Internic > asks me to tell them *ahead of time* how many hosts there will be and > the subnet and masking policy for this block. > > How the H*** am I supposed to know that? > > Since I sent in this request, I have had *legitimate* requests for over > 40 class C-sized blocks. If I have to go to my regional providers block > to satisfy them, it will just contribute to the global routing table > explosion. > > My regional provider, Midnet, tells me that to get the last CIDR block, > they had to put in over 16 man-hours convincing the Internic that their > request was valid. This is from a Regional that serves 7 states! > > Is this crazy, or what? > > Now, what do we do about it? > > Paul Lustgraaf "Its easier to apologize than to get permission." > Network Specialist Grace Hopper > Iowa State University Computation Center [email protected] > Ames, IA 50011 515-294-0324 >
|