|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: standards for giving out blocks of IP addresses
Joshua: So what you're saying is that if I want to find out what the policy is, that I shouldn't bother going to the RIR's web site for any guidance. And, should I do that and actually bother to read the information they supply, I should ignore it because it doesn't mean anything since all that counts is what the "insider" of the day says it should be. And, if they refer to an RFC (yes I know what that stands for) then I shouldn't bother to look it up and read it, because it's only a suggestion and, "we don't really do things that way anyway". With all due respect, it's exactly that kind of situation that causes problems. Now I think I understand...somehow it's all starting to make sence. Chuck On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Joshua Goodall wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Charles Scott wrote: > > > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, David R Huberman wrote: > > > > > - Both are judged to have used their existing assignment 'efficiently' if > > > they have used 80% of it. > > > > Nope. But I give up. > > As a multiple LIR operator and one-time RIR insider, I can say that david > is correct with regard to policy in practise, and *that* is what matters. > > 2050 does not address issues relevant to a hierarchy of IRs and for this > (and other, more human) is only useful as a historical base for > understanding RIR policy. > > Beware the RFC lawyers who've forgotten what the letters "RFC" stand for. > > J
|