North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Internic address allocation policy

  • From: Ehud Gavron
  • Date: Mon Nov 18 23:30:43 1996

>By posting and bitching like this, you're sealing your fate in not getting
>address space.

	Wait, WHICH BLACKLIST is he getting on?  No, wait, you must
	mean that "by asking questions in a manner that makes it seem
	like the Internic is run by people who stole a government-provided
	sole-source database and now extort money from commercial industry
	to pay for its maintenance, you are opening up a can of worms"?

	Maybe you mean "Matthew, we know you're clueful, but by being
	negative, you'll PISS OFF the Internic, and THEY WON'T PLAY 
	with you despite their charter, mission, govt. contract, etc.

	Now, don't get me wrong.  I'd love to have the Internic pissed
	off at me just as much as the next guy.  I just hate to see people
	(like Matthew, who's been around for a while) being told to 
	"shut up or you'll _never_ get what you want."

>> 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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -