past vs future use
Kim Hubbard
kimh at internic.net
Sat Jun 28 17:17:33 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. Gordon, the document clearly states there is a difference between allocations and assignments and that allocations are for ISPs and assignments are for end-users. Kim > 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