North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: The Big Squeeze
- From: Jim Fleming
- Date: Sun Mar 02 17:41:40 1997
On Sunday, March 02, 1997 4:15 AM, Nathan Stratton[SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org] wrote:
@ On Sun, 2 Mar 1997, Sean Donelan wrote:
@ Number of routes, I know of 2 ISPs that we provided access to that were
@ mad because the nic gave them /19 and not /18. The providers are now out
@ of business and there are 2 /19 not being used, but at least they are not
@ /18. If the provider did get larger the nic would have gladly taken back
@ the /19 and given them a /18.
If there were regional IP registries that had an economic incentive
to reclaim those 2 /19s, then those would be recycled and reused.
If you accept that people are going to fail, then you have to plan
in advance for taking allocations back, or better yet, not renewing
the lease. This happens in real estate with office space all the
Many buildings do not fragment their space because they have
a hard time leasing small spaces. Again, there are economic
and market-based reasons for this. It would be nice if the same
could be said for IP addresses.
The ARIN discussions (http://www.arin.net) focus on some
of these topics.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -