North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: 192/8 (was Re: NSP ... New Information )
- From: Matthew Petach
- Date: Mon Jun 09 00:46:16 1997
> In conversation with some NANOG participants last week I was asked
> more than once for clarification or further details about 192/8,
> continuing from Bill's remarks Friday.
[ ... ]
> An informal survey: how many NANOG participants have asked customers
> to renumber out of 192/8? And for how long have you been doing this?
InterNex has been refusing to route 192/8 blocks, and has been requiring
customers to renumber out of them since the presentation at the
Feb. NANOG in San Diego last year. We will work with customers to
replace their legacy 192/8 blocks provided they return them to
> IMHO the remaining major obstacle to a concerted effort at reclamation
> in 192/8 is the database maintenance problem. Folks with no incentive
> to keep their whois entries current have not been doing so-- since the
> typical pre-CIDR "Class C" delegate was not an ISP and has never come
> back for more space, the registries have limited leverage over them,
> with a few notable exceptions such as DDN-NIC. Accordingly, "whois"
> contact information simply doesn't tell you who's using a block. I
> haven't risked a blind survey again since the first one, but I have no
> reason to believe this has changed-- any takers?
I have long hoped that there would be a minimal annual fee required
for the continued usage of IP blocks. Even a $50/year fee would be
enough that given non-payment, blocks could more easily be reclaimed.
I'd expect a longer "On-Hold" time, say 180 days, where the blocks
would no longer be considered a valid announcement, but they would
also not be re-allocated by the local IR. Of course, this is purely
personal, and not representative of my employer. :)
> I hope and expect that ARIN may be able to throw some organized effort
> at this problem, if the membership feels that cleaning up the database
> is important.
I would cast my vote in the "yes it's important" box. :)
> Suzanne Woolf
> (ISI pays me to run routers'n'DNS'n'things,
> my opinions are mine)