Absolutely nothing, and therein lies the crux of the problem. To be
honest, I can understand the motivations behind InterNIC's policies.
However, comprehension of said policies does not mean that I agree on all
counts. It truly shouldn't (IMHO) be as difficult as it sometimes is to
get address space, but perhaps it's simply pushing the limitations of the
current system. The problem I see most often in smaller organizations as
they grow larger is the lack of consistency in internal policies, and the
like. i.e, FooNet Inc. has 12 or so Class C's from MCI, and as they pick
up extra providers perhaps the dance goes on until they have a hodgepodge
of networks. Now the ISP enters the next level, and someone decides they
need a larger CIDR block. They go to the NIC, and are told to submit a
justification. The problem seems to be that many ISP's simply have not
kept up with SWIP or RWhois, and are completely unprepared for a stricter
accounting of their address space, even when/if they are efficiently using
it. The frustration enters when the ISP begins to see the possibility of
losing customers, as they try to sort out their justification. It's quite
easy to see how people might feel compelled to scream at Kim, call their
lawyer, make themselves sick and generally have fits over the problem.
On the other hand, the NIC staff are simply not superhuman beings capable
of personally babysitting a thousand customers as they try to sort out
their addressing problems and policies. Hence the restrictive policies,
which are really a defense mechanism to prevent unscrupulous people from
taking advantage of the system and further screwing it up.
So, my question is: What can we do to make it better? Not "What can Kim
Hubbard do to fix it", and not "What can those stupid ISP's do to fix it",
but what can both do collaboratively to work out a consistent method of
doing things, and making sure that it's well known to both new existing
providers of network solutions.