North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Internic address allocation policy

  • From: Chris A. Icide
  • Date: Mon Nov 18 23:59:34 1996

At 09:15 PM 11/18/96 -0700, Ehud Gavron wrote:
>	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."
>	Ehud

No, I don't think that is anything near what he is saying.  IMHO, what I
read between the lines is this in fact...  We have all been having to deal
with this.  Many of us have been in Matt's position, and what we have
learned is that in fact, the IP people at the Internic are in fact that,
Imagine my amazement when I met Kim in person and found out she
didn't have fangs, horns, and a string with dried Network Engineers' ears
'round her neck.  In fact, she is a very nice person doing a very difficult
job.  She has a set of rules she must live by.  she has to be impartial,
and show no preferences.  

The things that Matt is running into sounds just like the things that
a good number of us have run into.  The end being, if you follow the
requirements (sign an NDA, EVERY lawyer of worth knows what those
are), you get the addresses you need.  So maybe you have to deal with
a /19 here, an /18 there, and a few /17's before you get a /16.  It's a 
rough life, but I doubt anyone is going to jump on your case for creating
two routes where only one would have existed before.  That extra 
route is going to fall in the noise level as everyone and thier brother

If route table size was an argument that the Internic was going to
blindly accept, it would have already happened.  What your lawyers will
eventually find out, is that you are being treated in exactly the same 
manner as everyone else.  At this point, you're going to be looking at
a suit that will run for a couple of years without any sign of closure.

My suggestion is to seriously sit down, and evaluate your current
assignment of IP's and make sure they are allocated in a sane and
efficient manner.  If they are not, renumber, if they are, swip.  Then 
create an engineering plan that runs a good distance into the 
future, and supply that plan to the IP group at the Internic.  I think
you might find the way less rocky at that point.

Again, this is all my humble opinion, and not based on any semblance
of knowledge on the internal functions of the Internic.  I'll leave that to
Kim.  (*wave*  Hi Kim)

Chris A. Icide
Nap.Net, L.L.C.

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