The latest

At 08:58 27-06-97 -0500, you wrote:
>On Friday, June 27, 1997 8:40 AM, Stephen
Sprunk[SMTP:spsprunk at paranet.com] wrote:
...
>@ If you'll remember, I argued for atomic netblocks in NANOG a while back and
>@ received no support, even from you, who claim to support the idea.
...
>Again...I have suggested a very simple plan...
>
>3,000 new /18 allocations for ISPs.
>An easy application form with NO "subjective" decisions.
>I can dig out the details if you missed the original postings.

What is your reasoning for the allocations to be /18s, and for there to be
exactly 3,000 of them?  I'd have suggested 4096x /20s (exactly 1x /8),
except for the problem with Sprint (and others) filtering things longer
than /19.

I would have serious reservations about allocating 48 million IPs with
absolutely no review policy.  Everyone and their dog (and their cats and
goldfish too) would be getting blocks, even if they didn't need anything
more than a single PA-C.

I'd also like to hear specific guidelines for reclamation of addresses,
since no NIC (that I know of) has ever made any attempt at reclaiming IPs
en masse.

>One thing that is odd is that ARIN is not needed to
>make any of these plans happen. They could have been
>done within the InterNIC structure. No one has ever explained
>why the creation of ARIN is going to magically change any
>of the decision making process. I predict that it will not.

ARIN's stated purpose is to divide the allocation of IPs and SLDs, not to
change any policies.  ARIN should be following the policy outlined in RFC
2050, which also governs RIPE and APNIC.  Since ARIN will actually have
member involvement in the process (as with RIPE and APNIC), it is likely
things will become more user-friendly.

Stephen