past vs future use

On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Gordon Cook wrote:

> 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.

It appears I'd skimmed over 3.0 too fast and should have been looking at
2.x instead.  Why are ISP's treated as second class citizens in RFC 2050?
An end user enterprise can qualify for a /19 if they will use 1/4 of it
immediately, and 50% in the next year or so.  According to guideline 4 for
ISP's, it looks as if an ISP must prove they will fully use an allocation
in 3 months, and 2.2 suggests that they must swip at least 80% of the
first allocation to be considered for further ones.  Should I submit
swip's for the blocks I use for virtual servers and dynamic dialup IP's?

> 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.

Same here.  Also, when will the ARIN issues (like fees and membership) be
ironed out now that ARIN has been "approved".  I still think it's
ridiculous to not give a membership (at no extra cost) to any entity that
has paid for an allocation.  

i.e. After FDT pays for an allocation, assuming we can qualify, I think
FDT should be an ARIN member (at no additional charge) for as long as it
uses ARIN assigned space.  Does anyone disagree with this?  If so, I'd
like to know why.


------------------------------------------------------------------
 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_______