|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Class "B" forsale (fwd)
On Monday, March 10, 1997 9:13 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:[email protected]] wrote: @ > @ > What is the InterNIC policy on the sale of class Bs? @ > -- @ > From: Joseph T. Klein, Titania Corporation http://www.titania.net @ > E-mail: [email protected] Sent: 22:10:20 CST/CDT 03/09/97 @ @ The InterNIC's policy is what's stated in rFC2050. An organization @ must justify the utilization efficiency of address space. They need @ to justify it whether they request it from a regional registry, whether @ they buy it or whether they received it for Xmas. @ @ The way I look at it is, an organization received address space because @ of information they listed on an IP template. They had a requirement @ for this amount of IP numbers. Even if they received it long ago when @ it was easier to get addresses, they still had to show some kind of @ requirement. If they no longer have a requirement for the address, @ they should return it. @ ISPs have a very small percentage of the IP address allocations. Despite this, ISPs endure most of the pain. Why not focus on this 25% of the addess space first...? CA 0.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-1) CA 1.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-9) CA 2.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-2) NJ 3.0.0.0 General Electric Company (NET-GE-INTERNET) MA 4.0.0.0 BBN Planet (NET-SATNET) CA 5.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-5) AZ 6.0.0.0 Army Information Systems Center (NET-YPG-NET) CA 7.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-11) MA 8.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBN-NET-TEMP) NY 9.0.0.0 IBM Corporation (NET-IBM) CA 10.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-6) CA 11.0.0.0 DoD Intel Information Systems (NET-DODIIS) FL 12.0.0.0 AT&T ITS (NET-ATT) CA 13.0.0.0 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (NET-XEROX-NET) CA 14.0.0.0 Public Data Network (NET-PDN) CA 15.0.0.0 Hewlett-Packard Company (NET-HP-INTERNET) CA 16.0.0.0 Digital Equipment Corporation (NET-DEC-INTERNET) CA 17.0.0.0 Apple Computer, Inc. (NET-APPLE-WWNET) MA 18.0.0.0 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (NET-MIT-TEMP) MI 19.0.0.0 Ford Motor Company (NET-FINET) VA 20.0.0.0 Computer Sciences Corporation (NET-CSC) VA 21.0.0.0 DDN-RVN (NET-DDN-RVN) DC 22.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-DISNET) CA 23.0.0.0 IANA (NET-DDN-TC-NET) CA 24.0.0.0 @Home Network (NETBLK-ATHOME) ATHOME 24.0.0.0 - 24.3.255.0 UK 25.0.0.0 Royal Signals and Radar Establishment (NET-RSRE-EXP) VA 26.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-MILNET) CA 27.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-10) VA 28.0.0.0 ARPA DSI JPO (NET-DSI-NORTH) DC 29.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-MILX25-TEMP) DC 30.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-ARPAX25-TEMP) CA 31.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-12) Norway 32.0.0.0 Norsk Informasjonsteknologi (NET-NORGESNETT) OH 33.0.0.0 DLA Systems Automation Center (NET-DCMC) TX 34.0.0.0 Halliburton Company (NET-HALLIBURTON) MI 35.0.0.0 Merit Network Inc. (NET-MERIT) CA 36.0.0.0 Stanford University (NET-SU-NET-TEMP) CA 37.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-37A) VA 38.0.0.0 Performance Systems International (NET-PSINETA) CA 39.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-39A) IN 40.0.0.0 Eli Lilly and Company (NET-LILLY-NET) CA 41.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (RESERVED-41A) CA 42.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-42) Japan 43.0.0.0 Japan Inet (NET-JAPAN-A) CA 44.0.0.0 Amateur Radio Digital Communications (NET-AMPRNET) CA 45.0.0.0 Interop Show Network (NET-SHOWNETA) MA 46.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBNNET) Canada 47.0.0.0 Bell-Northern Research (NET-BNR) NY 48.0.0.0 Prudential Securities Inc. (NET-PRUBACHE) 49.0.0.0 No match for "49.0.0.0". 50.0.0.0 No match for "50.0.0.0". UK 51.0.0.0 Department of Social Security of UK (NET-ITSANET) DE 52.0.0.0 E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc. (NET-DUPONT1) Germany 53.0.0.0 cap debis ccs (NET-DB-NET2) NJ 54.0.0.0 Merck and Co., Inc. (NET-MERCK2) VA 55.0.0.0 Army National Guard Bureau (NET-RCAS2) NC 56.0.0.0 U.S. Postal Service (NET-USPS1) France 57.0.0.0 SITA-Societe Internationale de Telecommunications Aeronautiques (NET-SITA2) CA 58.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-58) CA 59.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-59) CA 60.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-60) CA 61.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-61) CA 62.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-62) CA 63.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-63) @ Yes, I know many (David and Geoff:-)) are probably calling me Pollyanna @ right about now and it is true that most companies won't return it @ if they think they can sell it. But I think having a procedure in @ place to at least begin reclaiming addresses from those organizations @ that are no longer in business can only help matters. @ I agree...the following posting explains why I do not think ARIN will be able to do that... @@@@@@@@ ---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 10, 1997 1:50 PM To: 'John Curran'; Jim Fleming Cc: 'Leo Smith'; 'Tim Bass'; 'Bradley Dunn'; 'Christopher Sevcik'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'Jay Fenello'; 'Justin W. Newton'; 'Kent Landfield'; '[email protected]'; 'Peter J. de Blanc' Subject: RE: InterNIC 2000 Summary On Monday, March 10, 1997 1:36 PM, John Curran[SMTP:[email protected]] wrote: @ >Comments...? @ @ With respect to 10 regional NIC's performing IP allocations @ without providing connectivity, you'll need a plan for how @ routing announcements from such assignments will be handled. @ The plan can be as simple as hand-waving and saying that @ technology will allow an order-of-magnitude growth in the @ routing calculations, but you should at least record the @ assumption. @ @ /John @ @ p.s. Proposed ARIN Board member @ p.p.s. Newdom dropped from cc intentionally, @ as my comment is IP registry specific. @ Thanks for the comment. Once again, I will point out that the /8s will be assigned for management purposes. The goal is NOT to hand out virgin /8s to cause a run on the IPv4 address space to fill the router tables with a massive number of entries. Those are FUD notions and are not the objective. The objective is to bring the IP address space under proper management and funding and to get more people involved to help work with reclamation and ecology as well as aggressive aggregation plans. This can only happen in Regions because some of this work takes "local knowledge". Also, more people means more eyes and ears and more attention to seeing IP space that has been abandoned or is being wasted. Moving the current small InterNIC group to another small ARIN group is not the solution. We need to get more people involved, more adults involved and get the Internet on a track where the entire world community can feel the stable structures and continue to invest. P.S. ARIN list not added because ARIN is aimed at solving a local InterNIC problem that will quickly go away when we all work together on a coherent plan that encompasses, NSF, NSI, the SBA, the FNC, the U.S. Government and the many people and companies that have invested time and energy on the emerging Registry Industry. P.P.S. Newdom is a "whiteboard" archive for many Registry Industry issues...it is mostly write-only...and has a reliable operator who does not erase messages... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: [email protected] [email protected] (EDNS/IPv8) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|