|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Internic address allocation policy
By posting and bitching like this, you're sealing your fate in not getting address space. > > I'm having a problem getting the Internic to allocate additional IP > addresses to us. I'm looking for feedback (public or private) from others > who may have had this problem that I can forward to my lawyers. > > Scruz-Net recently merged with another company. As the new company, we > are in the process of deploying a large DS-3 based IP network, with > attachments to more than 5 major interconnect points. As such, we need > address space both for our backbone and our customers. > > First, I tried to get address space for the new company. Response was that > under the slow-start policies, I could get nothing bigger than a /19. > Well, that's not interesting, because I'm not about to deliberately subject > myself to routing filters that I think make good technical sense (hello > Sprint). > > So I turned around and said that the EXISTING company (scruz-net) needs more > address space. First off, we got told that because we didn't use our last > allocation (a /16) quickly enough (three months is their suggestion, took > us more like 9-12 months to fill it up, with careful assignment) we obviously > didn't need a block that big. (Now, since the point is to conserve routing > table size among us providers who carry full tables, isn't it better for me > to get a /16 and use it slowly than to get 4 unrelated /18's that each last > three months???) > > So then I argued that since the merger has happened, and we have sales > projections that show that with a much larger geographic coverage and > hundreds of people out selling the product, we ought to be using addresses > a bit faster. That started a back-and-forth where I had to "prove" that > a merger had really occured, when I was in fact under legal requirements > to not talk about the merger until it was made public. > > Now I guess they believe that, and they've fallen back on the argument > that I don't allocate addresses as well as they'd like. This is based on > looking at our rwhois data. Now, we have large numbers of customers with > small static blocks who don't really want their name and address listed > publically... and so we've listed those blocks as things like > w.x.y.z/24 -> "workgroup ISDN accounts in San Jose". But that apparently > doesn't satisfy whoever plays [email protected] In fact, upon reviewing > our customer policy about disclosure of customer information, we've had > to turn off our rwhois server entirely until we can go through and seriously > sanitize it. > > All I want is some addresses so that I can continue to hook up customers, > allocate additional addresses to providers downstream of us who need more > addresses for *their* customers, and build a backbone network. But I've > been forced into getting our lawyers involved. > > I never thought that getting another block of IP addresses would come to > that. *sigh* > > Again, anybody who's figured out how to force the Internic to be > reasonable about address allocation, *please* drop me a note. > > -matthew kaufman > [email protected] > -- jamie g. k. rishaw | [email protected] | home e-mail:[email protected] url-free sig file | corporate support svcs. | "I had a dream .. there was corp: 216.771.0002 |"religious right" is neither| an info-mercial selling an C4 48 1B 26 18 7B 1F D9 BA C4 9C 7A B1 07 07 E8 | awk script for $29.95" -rdm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|