North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Internic address allocation policy. (fwd)

  • From: Billy Biggs
  • Date: Tue Nov 19 20:25:35 1996

On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:

>    Even the private, behind the scenes, allocations
>    made by the IANA, such as the @Home allocation which was not
>    made based on SWIP information. How could it be? They did not even
>    have customers, just a lot of venture capital and the "right" people
>    on their staff.
> Regardless of whether the skids were greased on this allocation, the
> result is the right way to go..
> As a definite outsider to all this, it looks like much of 24/8 has
> been given out in /16../14 sized chunks to various cable operators,
> with lots of space in between them (some of them have room to expand
> to a /10 or /11...).
> The cable companies *do* have customers; they aren't IP customers
> (yet), but they *are* customers, and no doubt the cable providers have
> been able to demonstrate how many of their customers already have
> computers and access to the internet via modem and are thus realistic
> customers for the ip-over-cable system..

I still look forward to a future where every home has an IP address and I 
thought cable internet access would bring that.  However, up here in 
Canada a new service from the cable companies is soon going to move to a 
dynamic addressing system.  The first reason they told me was that there 
isn't enough IP space in the world.

Is it such a problem for them to purchase more IP space?  There is room 
for expansion in 24, so as far as I can tell if they expect more 
customers than they have IP space for, they could purchase that space, 

An article I wrote about the current problems with this new cable-modem 
service is located at:

Billy Biggs
[email protected]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -