North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
- From: Forrest W. Christian
- Date: Sat Jan 27 06:44:25 1996
On Sat, 27 Jan 1996, David R. Conrad wrote:
> >Instead we're making all our customers renumber into the /18
> >block we succeeded in finally wrestling away from the internic by
> >agreeing to returning over an /18's worth of ip address space.
> Ah, the "Bill Manning Solution"(tm). Now if we could only get ISPs
> like Sprint to play, Bill could get his Nobel Internet Prize. The ISP
> you work for should be strongly commended, but I gather it wasn't done
> entirely voluntarily...
Well, not entirely. We looked at the situation and decided it was now or
never to get our customers into a multihome-able block. Fortunately,
all of our customers have been more than understanding about why they
need to move, especially with some of Sprint's past connectivity problems.
> >That said, I don't think every new ISP should get an /18 block. For
> >example, there are four other ISP's in the community here, and only one
> >of them would probably even know what the term CIDR meant.
> But what is the discriminator? RIPE-NCC and APNIC essentially use
> charging (e.g., to get a service provider block in the AP region, we
> request US $2500/year minimum). Would this be sufficient in the US to
> reduce the number of ISP requests InterNIC is currently experiencing
> (and I should note that the request rate has apparently doubled over 6
Setting a high fee would definately keep the "two high school student ISP"
out of the /18 block business. However, I know that some startup ISP's
wouldn't blink twice at $2500 a year, but their technical people can't
even spell BGP.
> And what would InterNIC do with the money?
Probably the same it's doing with the millions it's collecting from the
.COM, .ORG, and .NET domain registrations, whatever that is.