Internic address allocation policy

Well, I see two problems, one is that whatever solution be found needs
community consensus. Otherwise we may end up with ten anti-NICs or so?
Or at least many unhappy customers? The other problem is that (at
least I, but may be I am missing something) don't see how at the global
systems level this resolves the issue of appropriating address space
to, say, a j-random, perhaps new and ignorant with uncertain future,
service provider who would like to have 10,000 customers a year from
now, and wants 10,000 Class-C numbers accordingly. I still don't
understand what the groundrules for address allocation would be, at
least at the level below your top-level allocations. Even if you push
the problem a level down, it would still have to be resolved. The
resource will be scarce somewhere.

I am trying to focus on the IP address allocation guidelines here, not
the speediness of registrations, with the latter being more of a
technical (though apparently painful) issue, and probably a matter of
having enough resources allocated.

Well, sure, the new ISP might want 10,000 Class "C" addresses.

But the new ISP has no basis to request these. However, the CURRENT NIC is
declining requests for *256* Class "C" addresses!

That is, I was turned down for a Class "B" equivalent in a CIDR block. That
is ludicrous. Any reasonable regional ISP, large or small, is going to go
through that in a year. And if you enforce a 75% usage requirement to get
more, then you've got something workable.

I would define "usage" as "has a routing entry active on the net". Note
that this does have an honesty component, as, for example, we have part-time
networks connected via dial-up which are only routed when active. But trust
me, we have issued what we asked for -- and that space IS being actively
used by real, live, paying customers.

The current arrogance of the NIC in asking for business plans and such is
absolutely out of line and acts in restraint of trade. As such it has to go
away, and the only way to get a monster which thinks it is God under control
that works is to dice it up into smaller pieces, all of which KNOW they are
not God.

The request for a business plan was unreal. One of our customers was
ready to demand the business plan for the last large provider who
requested numbers. Has NET-99 been frustrated with the process ? Yes.
Have we screwed up our SWIP's at times ? Yes. Has the Nic lost requests
we sent in for domain names etc ? Yes. Is the Nic busy ? We all know that
answer. More routes, more numbers more eveything is going to cost us in
the end. When it comes to these numbers its time more of us had a say in
controlling our own future.

I support an increase in funding for the Nic. I have told them this many
times. I also support the recall of unused or under-used numbers. By
default I feel we the provider are in the position of telling our future
customers why we are going to limit the amount of ip numbers we issue.
Yes, I know SWIP them and they get more. Try telling that to a company
who has just signed up and paid big dollars to do a nationwide 56k frame
deal. Try listening to a customer saying he or she can get more numbers
from another provider.

Bottom line: Lets try to fix this in a common sense fashion and a
reasonable time. It is possible.

Joseph Stroup