Internic address allocation policy

. . .

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

If it weren't so sad, I would find this whole exchange very

I doubt that creating an anarchy will solve the problem. In the end,
the InterNIC is a contractor, and does what they are being told. It is
a service provided by the Feds for the better of the community. I am
not trying to defend the InterNIC, just saying that they are more or
less a robot operating on some guidelines. If you have a robot with
better guidelines, more power to you. I suspect the problem is not the
robot, but the guidelines (the program it executes). May be the
guidelines should be worked on, and I encourage the people who complain
on this list to develop better guidelines, then get community
consensus, then go to the funding agenci(es) that are responsible for
the NICs and present your case to them. If you get that far, I suspect
your likelihood of success to achieving a change is above the 95th
percentile. I know that both the InterNIC as well as Jon Postel have
explicitly asked for guidance from constituents over the years. Seems
to me like they have been left alone and now people are complaining,
given the reaction on both sites of the addressing space being a scarce

Of course, I cannot help the thought that the community could have
chosen (extendable) NSAPs years back as part of a CLNP package.



We are NOT trying to hassle the Nic. And yes they do work under the
guidelines. What we are saying is there is a real problem and by talking
about it here, enough people have come forward to verify it. I will be
more than happy to act as the contact with all parties involved and get
the ball rolling. As I said before, my goal is to make this an easier

I have telephones and they need numbers. I am not alone. This has been a
good discussion. Time to move forward with some action.