Internic address allocation policy

> 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 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 :slight_smile: ).

My vote would be for the six-twelve month timeframe for useage.

Michael Ramsey (KD4OKR) Network Engineering | INTERPATH |

Of course, when we projected that, they didn't believe us -- and refused to
grant the block.

My request was for 256 Class "C"s. We have consumed almost exactly that in
a year.

Yet, we were told to go stuff a year ago when we asked for the block, and
instead have had to get four different smaller blocks of space from other
sources. And we are not alone; I am personally involved with another
NATIONAL provider who has been told to stuff more than once by these folks,
and they consume addresses rather more quickly than we do.

This sucks, and in addition, it is counter-productive. Announcing one
aggregate beats announcing 4.

Of course, the NIC does not now and never has in the past given a damn
about getting ISPs *appropriate* sized blocks of addresses, nor does it
believe you when you call or email and request an allocation. I've been
told several times "the evidence does not support that allocation" and then
turned around and exceeded my own estimates (which I tend to be conservative
with) within a few months.

Perhaps its time to set up the Anti-NIC and start allocating addresses
from 223.255.255.x on down.

I have to agree with Karl & Joe (is this a first? :slight_smile: Dealing with the InterNIC
for address space just takes more time than it should, IMHO.

In order to get our address space out of them I had to write over 10 pages of
justification and FAXed it to them, after our electronic requests were slammed
immediately. This got us 1/4 of the requested space which we're now reaching
the limits of only 2months after allocation.

I was actually just tossing the idea around of using the RFC 1597 (it's 6am, if
I'm wrong, I'm wrong) networks that "shouldn't be announced" to the outside
world for parts of our infrastructure. The only downside I can see is that DNS
will fail to function on that part of our network. The upside is that an
outsider has no chance of directly reaching internal routers. :slight_smile:


I did the same. With a little drawing and a bit of written proof, I had
no problem in getting the block for Interpath. Interpath has
not *QUITE* used up the block, but pretty darn close, as Michael and
others can attest...

I certainly believe that if you are not willing to produce proof [of some
sort], you should not just be given the resources.... Heck, why not a
policy of "proof or pay". If you are not willing to show that you are
seriously planning to use them, *THEN* you pay for them?

Sorry to disagree with you on this one, Karl... :sunglasses:

                                              Alan B. Clegg
                                              Information Systems Manager
                                              American Research Group