|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
On Sat, 27 Jan 1996, David R. Conrad wrote: > >Instead we're making all our customers renumber into the /18 > >block we succeeded in finally wrestling away from the internic by > >agreeing to returning over an /18's worth of ip address space. > > Ah, the "Bill Manning Solution"(tm). Now if we could only get ISPs > like Sprint to play, Bill could get his Nobel Internet Prize. The ISP > you work for should be strongly commended, but I gather it wasn't done > entirely voluntarily... Well, not entirely. We looked at the situation and decided it was now or never to get our customers into a multihome-able block. Fortunately, all of our customers have been more than understanding about why they need to move, especially with some of Sprint's past connectivity problems. > > >That said, I don't think every new ISP should get an /18 block. For > >example, there are four other ISP's in the community here, and only one > >of them would probably even know what the term CIDR meant. > > But what is the discriminator? RIPE-NCC and APNIC essentially use > charging (e.g., to get a service provider block in the AP region, we > request US $2500/year minimum). Would this be sufficient in the US to > reduce the number of ISP requests InterNIC is currently experiencing > (and I should note that the request rate has apparently doubled over 6 > months)? Setting a high fee would definately keep the "two high school student ISP" out of the /18 block business. However, I know that some startup ISP's wouldn't blink twice at $2500 a year, but their technical people can't even spell BGP. > And what would InterNIC do with the money? Probably the same it's doing with the millions it's collecting from the .COM, .ORG, and .NET domain registrations, whatever that is. [email protected]
|