North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Allocation of IP Addresses
On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, Jim Browning wrote: > A. a single allocation capable of supporting planned growth, or > B. incremental allocations of *contiguous* blocks > > InterNIC's current CIDR allocation practice does not support either of > these options. Here's an idea. Let new ISP's reserve large blocks (say /16's) in 65/8, 66/8, .... but don't let them actually use these addresses on the global Internet. Then, the ISP can run a Network Address Translation gateway and give their customers 65/8 addresses while still using a chunk from their provider's block. And they can switch providers without forcing their customers to renumber. Then, after they have demonstrated that they should be given a /16, open up the block they were given in 65/8 for use without the NAT. Of course, there is one little problem with this.... bash$ whois 65 Air Force Logistics Command (ASN-LOGNET) LOGNET-AS 65 IANA (RESERVED-7) Reserved 64.0.0.0 - 95.0.0.0 bash$ whois 96 Army Finance and Accounting Office (ASN-JTELS) JTELS-BEN1-AS 96 IANA (RESERVED-8) Reserved 96.0.0.0 - 126.0.0.0 How did these guys get such big chunks of address space reserved? > The day to day implementation of policy by the InterNIC has increasingly > critical impact on our industry, to the point of controlling who has the > opportunity to succeed and who does not. IMHO, it is imperative that: > > 1. this function be performed in an understandable manner, > 2. objective criteria be consistently applied > 3. the criteria in use be publicly available, and > 4. there be defined mechanisms for the 'appeal' of decisions made in the > processing of allocation requests. > > Recent experience and observation leads me to conclude that these > imperatives are perhaps not being met. Am I all wet???? I think that the fundamental problem here is that the Internic is fundamentally clueless about important issues such as global routing and *BUSINESS* issues. They are behaving a lot like a government bureaucracy or a regulatory agency. I don't really see how this can be fixed with the current system of having a US government agency writing a contract with a private US company to provide a fundamental international infrastructure service! Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: [email protected]
|