Does anyone but me agree that the Internic's current address allocation
policy is counter-productive? I've been trying for three weeks now to get
a block of addresses assigned to me for re-assignment to my customers.
I run the non-profit Internet in the whole state of Iowa and the Internic
asks me to tell them *ahead of time* how many hosts there will be and
the subnet and masking policy for this block.
How the H*** am I supposed to know that?
Since I sent in this request, I have had *legitimate* requests for over
40 class C-sized blocks. If I have to go to my regional providers block
to satisfy them, it will just contribute to the global routing table
explosion.
My regional provider, Midnet, tells me that to get the last CIDR block,
they had to put in over 16 man-hours convincing the Internic that their
request was valid. This is from a Regional that serves 7 states!
Is this crazy, or what?
Now, what do we do about it?
Paul Lustgraaf "Its easier to apologize than to get permission."
Network Specialist Grace Hopper
Iowa State University Computation Center grpjl@iastate.edu
Ames, IA 50011 515-294-0324
YES.
Setting up the SWIP and some other requirements might be expected but, as
providers I think the line needs to be drawn somewhere. I mean there is a
difference between the smaller isp and a network thats got millions of
dollars invested. I know that other major nets have had problems as well.
This problem just needs to go away.
Joseph Stroup
You know the more I read on this the nutter it sounds. We only get
address numbers to use them ? I sure as heck don't see having a Class A,
B, C or anything like that as a status symbol. Ip numbers are like a
Craftsman wrench, a means to and end. How many others are having this
same problem ?
Joseph
It would be a good idea to recover the ip address numbers that have never
been used. I would also suggest that within 90 days of issuance the
numbers must be in service or they are recalled.
I mentioned to the Nic that there are several class B numbers out there
being used as a "status symbol" , not for the purpose stated. All I hear
is lets talk about not and not the past.
For international X.25 services NET-99 required a DNIC number. The FCC
inserts a clause states the following: all DNIC assignments are
provisional and no assignee obtains an ownership or property interest in
a DNIC assignment. As a rseult, the DNIC herein assigned is expressly
subject to possible revocation or reassignment as may be required because
of a shortage of DNIC's or as otherwise required in the public interest.
If you fail to agree, you don't get a number. Throughout the FCC letters
there is a constant mention of "this scarce DNIC resource may necessitate
reassignment of codes not implemented within a six-month period.
Now if the FCC has been doing this I am sure we could work out something
with the Nic.
Joseph Stroup
I agree that unused address _blocks_ be recovered.
However your 90 day "use-it-or-lose-it" is a bit rash. From a
fellow-provider standpoint, I want to be able to get a nice-sized block of
"class-c" addresses that I can aggregate into _1_ routing statement. To do
that, I have to have the freedom to project client usage for a year and
request a year's supply. Your suggestion would have me applying to the
NIC on a "just-in-time" basis, and creating at least one more routing
entry for each new client. Backbone routers are melting down already
because of too many entries. And it is not like the NIC has the time to
take on the more frequent requests for addresses and keep track of who's
time is up that your plan would impose (or if they do, I want to know
where a couple of domain registrations are 
).
My vote would be for the six-twelve month timeframe for useage.
Anything that eliminates the current situation would be great.