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 18:35:08 1996
Just to clarify this.....
We "originally" had a /20 and a /23 from Sprint.
Late July of Last year, we were out of addresses - we had more
requests than we could fill. I had attempted to obtain an /19 from
Sprint, but was having difficulty getting the addresses.
As a result, I went to the internic. After several rounds of "Why aren't
you getting the address from sprint, and what's the deal with this and
that", I finally got allocated a /19.
About a week later someone in Sprint decided to allocate the /19. After
the mess I had gone through, I decided to keep the second /19.
Sometime after I recieved the "two" /19's, Sprint announced that the
filters would be applied at /18. Great, now I have two blocks which I
can't use on the net. (Yes, I know, Sprint relaxed their filters, but
after this was mostly done with).
Our goal was to renumber our customers into a announcements which we
could guarantee would be routed when backbone router meltdown forced
people to squeeze the swamp. As a result, I needed an /18.
I sent a note to the internic, requesting an /18 in exchange for my
existing /19's and the /23, which I would return to their origin
registries. I got the following note back:
" The InterNIC allocates addresses to ISPs based on the slow start
procedure as detailed in the ISP guidelines. Please utilize the /19,
once you have reassigned the /19 and SWIPped them you may request
additional address space and if the InterNIC feels you are assigning
them efficiently you may request additional address space."
Which, in all fairness to the internic, I responded to with a very short
note which summarized the application. Basically, stating that I was
unsure why that Allocating me an /18 in exchange for the equivalent of an
/18 plus a /20, plus a few customer IP's, was a problem.
I got the block. We vacated the /19's in a very short time, and we've
about got the /20 vacated (2-3 /24's to go).
If I implied that the internic is forcing us to renumber, I'm sorry.
What I should have said is "We're renumbering because of various
reasons. However, we had a hard time getting the /18 we're numbering
into. We succeeded in getting the /18 because we had over an /18's worth
of addresses which we returned to the internic".
On Sat, 27 Jan 1996, Kim Hubbard 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.
> In your initial request to the InterNIC you stated you were going
> to return the /18 to your upstream provider. This was your idea.
> If you didn't want to do it than why did *you* suggest it?
> You obviously had your reasons for wanting your customers to renumber,
> but implying that the InterNIC forced you to do this is totally
> incorrect as you know. Would you like me to forward you a copy of the
> request to refresh your memory?