North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Internic address allocation policy

  • From: Jamie
  • Date: Mon Nov 18 22:12:34 1996

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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -