North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: RWHOIS, SWIP, and proving ownership
[note reply-to line] Ehud, I'm curious -- given the registries are required to conserve address space, what would you suggest the registries do to attempt to insure address space allocated is actually used? Regards, -drc -------- >Consider this a side note to the preceding discussion. > >1. Most of our clients understand that their ''lease'' on network address > space is at our whim, by contract for IP connectivity, and is subject > to renumbering if WE assign them new space, if WE are assigned new space, > or if they move elsewhere. > > Therefore they don't ask us to SWIP the nets nor do they care. > >2. RWHOIS doesn't run on any production operating system. I know Unix is > in vogue, but since we do the 99.96% uptime schtick, we use operating > systems that stay up (VMS). This means we can't run RWHOIS (even if we > did want to, which if you read #1 above you'll see we don't.) > >3. We currently use almost all of a /18, two thirds of a /19, a few /22s, > and some /24s. It would be easy to justify a /17 based on all this, but > if someone wanted to be rigid about RWHOIS and SWIP, even a bunch of > traceroutes aren't going to convince them. > >Back in THE GOOD OLD DAYS (tm), we said "Be flexible with what you accept, >be rigid with what you send out." (Others made it sound better and put it >in RFCs... D.C. for one.. :) > >Nowadays I see the motto has become "Be rigid in what you accept, and modify >your templates as often as possible." This criticism applies equally to the >RA IRR as it does to the InterNIC. > >Gee, and this started out as one sentence that went "We don't run RWHOIS, our >clients don't want it, our operating system won't support it, and you better >listen when we ask for a /17 ;)" > >Ehud > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|