North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Internic address allocation policy
> Matthew, I do not think it's a good idea to get into the specifics regarding your request on this list. I will email you privately so we may continue this and hopefully work something out. Kim > Original message <[email protected]> > From: Kim Hubbard <[email protected]> > Date: Nov 19, 10:27 > Subject: Re: Internic address allocation policy > > > > > > > Matthew, > > > > The InterNIC bases additional allocation blocks on efficient utilization. > > We can only see the utilization from your SWIPs and RWHOIS info. If > > you refuse to supply contact information on your assignments, how can we > > tell what your utilization is? > > > > And as for the routing table overload, although the initial allocation > > may be relatively small, it is almost always reserved from a larger block. > > > > Bottom line, to receive additional address space all you have to do is > > the same thing everyone else does - submit reassignment information. You > > don't have to fly out here, you don't have to be nice to me, just follow > > the basic policies. > > > > Regards, > > > > Kim Hubbard > > InterNIC Registry > > > > If you review the email exchanged between myself and [email protected] > you'll find that several other "requirements" have been put out there for > me to meet. It isn't just "all you have to do is... submit reassignment > information". > > Furthermore, my mailbox is filling with stories from people who submitted > reassignment information and were then told "sorry, you conserved addresses > so well that you didn't even use a /19 in 3 months, so you don't get > any more addresses" THAT sure isn't "all you have to do is... submit > reassignment information" > > My SWIP and RWHOIS data shows that over 90% of my address space is > allocated and lists contact information. There are only about 16 class C's > where I've listed "subnetted for large numbers of 'workgroup' accounts", > which is something like 3% of my total addresses. This exceeds, by far, > the number of allocated addresses that show up via rwhois and swip for > address blocks held by other providers who are not having problems > receiving addresses. > > Clearly the standards are not being applied equally, and the standards > are preventing some people from engaging in this business. > > -matthew kaufman > [email protected] > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|