consistancy

On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 02:45:14PM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > > 	These two statements are inconsistant. "reclaiming" space
> > > 	may affect the business of the parties that have been delegated
> > > 	space.  To quote Mike Horwath; "...is just not nice..."
> > 
> > I say cool, let's conserve *where we can*.  In return I want ARIN to
> > go to the people who were given allocations before the big IP scare of
> > the mid nineties that should have never ever been given out and relaim
> > said space to ease this issue of 'we are running out of IPs'.
> 
> 	"... should have never ever been given out..."
> 	Hindsight is 20/20. These delegation predate CIDR
> 	and the addressing "scare" of the mid-90's. And 
> 	several of the "egregious" delegations predate the 
> 	existance of the A/B/C formats and the address "scare"
> 	of the mid-80's.

I agree that hindsight is 20/20 and I know about when these
delegations were made.

> 	You are correct in some things though. We must conserve
> 	where we can; e.g. manage the assets that each of us,
> 	individually, have been delegated. But it "... is just not
> 	nice..." to tell others how to manage their assets.

They are no longer assets.  At one time it was a big deal to get
addressing, now adays it is a fight.

> 	Remember, the scarce resource is -NOT- the IP address, its
> 	the routing table slots that hold the prefixes.

Yep, I know.

Can address space be 'given' to someone else yet?  I am due for
another allocation, I have a customer with a large block.  Is it okay
for me to trade them a /22 in return for their /16?

-- 
Mike Horwath           IRC: Drechsau         drechsau at Geeks.ORG
Home: 763-540-6815  1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN  55427
Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself
through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period.