@ At 12:06 PM 11/20/96 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
@ >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 - 18.104.22.168
@ > Digital Computer - 22.214.171.124
@ > Apple Computer - 126.96.36.199
@ > MIT - 188.8.131.52
@ This lynches it. You are absolutely insane. You whine and moan about
@ having to tell the EvilInternic(tm) about your network, potential
@ customers, etc etc, yet you believe that DEC would gladly give information
@ to Apple about their internal network etc etc. More effort would be sepnt
@ in court with lawyers haggeling over what DEC had to give Apple and Apple
@ had to give DEC in order to properly be audited than would have originally
@ been spent with an audit by an external agency doing the audit. Or wait,
@ let me guess DISA wants to be audited by a foriegn company (184.108.40.206 for
@ DISA and 220.127.116.11 for the foriegn company, 31 is IANA reserved, so I am
@ assuming that it would be skipped).
@ Yeah, that.
@ Justin Newton
@ Network Architect
@ Erol's Internet Services
As usual you missed the point. The idea is to
promote a "self-auditing" system. If Digital does
not want to provide any information that is fine.
Hewlett Packard and Apple simply have to say,
"Our neighbor Digital Equipment, has declined
to provide information". That will make the job
very easy for HP and Apple.
That attitude can ripple through the entire
system. If that happens then, no one should
complain about IP allocations and misuse.
What was that old saying about "glass houses"
and "casting the first stone"...?
P.S. Regarding your comments about the
InterNIC. I have objected to people like yourself
having discussions with InterNIC (or NSI)
employees about other people's business
matters and then running around mailing lists
referring to those discussions and acting like
you are very chummy with the InterNIC. I
think that I have been very clear on those
points..."The InterNIC has no business
discussing other people's business with
you, no matter how buddy buddy you are..."