Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

>using it up.

InterNIC's error was not in doing what they did to you but in not aligning
the 1st (or at least the 2nd) of those blocks on a RATIONAL boundary (such
as /16) and giving you your CIDR Block from the front end of the range
[reserving the rest for your expansion needs for a designated period of
time (or until they needed to recycle the unused part of the /16 block for
other users)]. Since the InterNIC assigned blocks are not going to be able
to be aggregated anyway, why not just allocate them on large boundaries and
leave room for expansion that will NOT introduce a new announcement when
the ISP comes back for another Block. They can do Garbage Collection when
they run out of the larger CIDR blocks and need to reclaim the "wasted"
space (there is no downside to this method that is worse then the current
system of supplying non-contiguous CIDR blocks to the same ISP [as in your
case]). If you ask for a /16 to hold you for 1 or 2 years, then they should
give it to you but only allow you to use the first /21 until it is full and
you can justify expanding it with a /20 or to a /19 (ie: Give you a /19.5
in lieu of the /20 they gave you). If after the 1 or 2 year period is over
and you are only using the first /19, then they can leave the 2nd /19 as an
expansion area and reissue the other 6 /19s for other ISPs.


Should the InterNIC allocate *every* ISP addresses from a reserved /16?
Or just certain ones? Or maybe only the ones that ask for it? (Which
happens to be almost every one). I'm not trying to be facetious here,
it's just that in my experience, 90% of the ISPs that I deal with
believe they deserve at least a /16 as a first or second allocation.

As I stated before, we do reserve from larger blocks now but not
necessarily /16s. I'm not sure about the case above - but the 204/8
block hasn't been allocated from in a long time so his blocks were
probably issued before we started reserving from larger blocks. We
all live and learn :slight_smile: