RE: Internic address allocation policy (fwd)

@ I would like to see more information on this item in particular -> is this
@ being done currently -> or are plans underway to do so?... in regards to
@ 'un-lending' that address space from those organizations to make them
@ available for everyone else?
@ now that would create some interesting discussions - :wink:
@ ed jackson
@ At 04:03 PM 11/19/96 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
@ > 7. A complete review of /8 allocations should be done
@ > with a complete audit of how the companies
@ > that have those allocations are utilizing those
@ > blocks (as well as other blocks). The CEOs and
@ > shareholders of those companies should be
@ > informed that their past policies may not conform
@ > to modern standards of frugal allocations.
@ +--------------------------------------------------+
@ Ed Jackson
@ International Network Services
@ numeric pager: 1-888-352-4117
@ email pager: <>
@ +--------------------------------------------------+

I have suggested in the past a "neighbor net" approach.
It is a simple approach in which people on each side
of an allocation, be responsible for publishing a periodic
usage report. They would obtain this information from
their "neighboring" administrator.

This approach can work for /24s, /16s and any size
allocations, as long as one is aware of who their binary
neighbor is in the IPv4 address space.

To illustrate a /8 example, Hewlett Packard and Apple
Computer would be responsible for the report on
Digital Computer Corporation.

  Hewlett Packard -
  Digital Computer -
  Apple Computer -
  MIT -

Digital would then be responsible for the report on
Apple Computer along with MIT. A web site could
easily be constructed with pointers to the various
sites where the usage reports are stored.

To help each person's "neighbor", the company
would provide the base material for the report. The
neighbors would act more as auditers, than reporters.


Hewlett-Packard Company (NET-HP-INTERNET)
   3000 Hanover Street
   Palo Alto, CA 94304

   Netname: HP-INTERNET

      Milligan, Michael J. (MM53) milli@HP.COM
      1-415-424-3706 (FAX) 1-415-424-3632

   Domain System inverse mapping provided by:


   Record last updated on 16-Aug-95.


Digital Equipment Corporation (NET-DEC-INTERNET)

   Netname: DEC-INTERNET

      Reid, Brian K. (BKR) reid@PA.DEC.COM
      415) 688-1307
   Alternate Contact:
      Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC-NOC)
      (415) 688-1380 (800) DIGITAL

   Domain System inverse mapping provided by:


   Record last updated on 17-Oct-94.


Apple Computer, Inc. (NET-APPLE-WWNET)
   20740 Valley Green Drive, MS: 32-E
   Cupertino, CA 95014

   Netname: APPLE-WWNET

      Zimmerman, David Paul (DPZ) dpz@APPLE.COM
      +1 (408) 974-2436 (FAX) +1 (408) 974-3103
   Alternate Contact:
      Tsuno, Eugene Y. (EYT) eugene@APPLE.COM
      (408) 974-4310

   Domain System inverse mapping provided by:


   Record last updated on 15-Jan-96.


Massachusetts Institute of Technology (NET-MIT-TEMP)
   1 Amherst Street
   Cambridge, MA 02139-1986

   Netname: MIT

      Schiller, Jeffrey I (JIS) jis@MIT.EDU
      +1 617 253-8400 (FAX) +1 617 258-8736

   Domain System inverse mapping provided by:


   Record last updated on 14-Jan-94.


Some have challenged that this will not work
because, get this, some neighbors are no longer
using their IP addresses and would not respond
to inquiries. I have suggested that this might be
a good way to find these fragments of IP address

Others have commented that they do not want
anyone to know how they are allocating those
16 million addresses, and that it is proprietary
information. Maybe that should be all that the
"neighbor net" report says.

As an example only, MIT could claim that
they asked Apple and all they saw were No
Trespassing signs. This could be reported to
the CEO of Apple and the Shareholders. Apple
could then decide what they want to present.

At the present time, it appears that the CEOs
of these companies and the leaders of these
Universities do not have any idea that they
have effectively homesteaded massive areas
of Internet Land. The impression that their
company is giving to the Internet community
may be controlled by one or two "geeks"
who have no authority to create that impression.

In my opinion, the CEOs of those companies
need to be contacted as part of a "neighbor net"
plan. I have a feeling their PR departments will
be interested, now that they have heard of the