past vs future use
Larry Vaden
vaden at texoma.net
Sat Jun 28 18:28:08 EDT 1997
- Previous message: past vs future use
- Next message: past vs future use
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
At 05:02 PM 6/28/97 -0400, Kim Hubbard wrote: >Jeff, > >The section of the RFC you are quoting is for end-user assignments, not >ISP allocations. ISPs requesting address space from the InterNIC must >show they've efficiently utilized a /19 already in order to justify receiving >a /19 or shorter prefix which is the longest prefix that is currently >globally routable. > >One of the first things we would like to accomplish with ARIN is to update >the allocation policies in coordination with its members. If you have any >suggestions please send them to the pagan mailing list...pagan at apnic.net. > >Kim Kim, Neither APNIC or RIPE requires prior efficient utilization of a /19 for an ISP. InterNIC does. What is the authority for doing so? If it is in RFC2050, please point it out `[8-)) Otherwise, please point out the URL of the real rules. Sincerely, --- Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 Internet Texoma, Inc. <http://www.texoma.net> direct 903-870-0365 Member, Board of Directors, ISP/C fax 903-868-8551 bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland pager 903-867-6571
- 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