past vs future use
Gordon Cook
cook at NETAXS.COM
Sat Jun 28 13:17:30 EDT 1997
- Previous message: past vs future use
- Next message: past vs future use
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sigh! relevant points. evidently allocation and assignment of ip numbers are different. evidently sect 3.1 is not intended to apply to isps. now that I have begun to look a little more closely at this stuff, it is NOT at all as clear as I would have hoped. I hope that we will begin to have a discussion of some of these issues over the next few days. what's the address of pagn kim? I am very interested in your and the arin board and jon postels views on a range of procedural issues. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************ On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Jon Lewis wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote: > > > The current Internic allocation policy appears to be that you need to > > utilize 32 Class C's worth of address space effectively before they will > > assign you a /19 address block. As it seems that a /19 is currently the > > That's not the impression I get from rfc2050. > > [direct quote from the rfc] > --- > 3.1 Common Registry Requirements > > Because the number of available IP addresses on the Internet is > limited, the utilization rate of address space will be a key factor > in network number assignment. Therefore, in the best interest of the > Internet as a whole, specific guidelines have been created to govern > the assignment of addresses based on utilization rates. > > Although topological issues may make exceptions necessary, the basic > criteria that should be met to receive network numbers are listed > below: > > 25% immediate utilization rate > 50% utilization rate within 1 year > > > --- > > Based on this, I would think an ISP that is, or is about to be, multihomed > and is currently completley (and efficiently) using at least a /21 worth > of IP's and expects to fully utilize a /20 in about 1 year _should_ be > able to apply for and receive their very own /19. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jon Lewis <jlewis at fdt.net> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will > Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. > Florida Digital Turnpike | > ________Finger jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______ >
- Previous message: past vs future use
- Next message: past vs future use
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the NAIPR mailing list