[arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
farmer at umn.edu
Mon Jun 3 19:11:06 EDT 2013
On 6/3/13 15:52 , William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:24 PM, John Osmon <josmon at rigozsaurus.com> wrote:
>> When (say) MIT asked for space, Class B was too small their needs and
>> Class A was the only larger size available. They didn't request a /8,
>> they requested a netblock that fit their needs and got a Class A. The
>> needs assessment at the time was simply different.
> Hi John,
> Not exactly. IIRC (and the old fogies are free to correct me here) the
> predecessor to IPv4 had exactly 256 addresses. When IPv4 was deployed,
> each prior user was automatically assigned the /8 corresponding to
> their prior address. MIT is one of the organizations which had a
> computer using the prior Internet protocol, so they automatically
> received a /8
I'm not really an old fogie, at least I don't think I am. However,
since I work for an organization with significant Legacy resources, I've
done a bit of research looking through the RFCs that document the
earliest IPv4 assignments, including several for my employer. See, RFCs
790, 820, 870, 900, 923, 943, 960, 990, 997, 1020, 1166.
Comparing RFC 776 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc776> and RFC 790
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc790> it is easy to infer what you say is
what happened in MIT's case, and a few others. However, John is also
right, if you demonstrated need you could get a class A, at least for a
some while. This can also be inferred by comparing RFC 790
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc790> and RFC 820
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc820>, note several class As were assigned
between these two RFCs. Also, along the way through this series RFCs
class As were assigned, RFC 1166 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1166> is
I think the last RFC that documented address assignments in an RFC.
> Very few /8's were assigned after that. Anybody who wanted more than a
> class B received multiple class B's, not a class A.
Eventually, yes that was the case, and was definitely the case by the
time RFC 1366 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1366> was published,
However it was still technically possible to get a class A even then,
look at Section 4.1 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1366#section-4.1>.
Finally, as was pointed out earlier, operational need was required for
all assignments. It was noted that even for a class C you had to
estimate how many hosts were going to be connected, initially, and at
one, two and five years. As a thought experiment, what do you think
John Postel would have said, if you answered that question with zero(0),
especially for the one, two and five year parts of the question. Do you
think it might have been "come back later"?
The bar was low, but there was a bar even for class Cs, and that bar was
that you were going to use them in a network, "operational need"
Therefore, I believe operational need is a principle that MUST be
included. There are valid policy questions of what the proper measure
of operational need for the current times and current protocols are. I
believe the measure of operational need will properly change over time,
and for IPv4 such a time is likely here or upon us very soon. But, a
principle that assignments or allocations are made for operational need
is valid and technically necessary. Equally, we need policies and
procedure that interpret this principle in the light of today's
protocols and operational realities, is also valid and necessary, and
the whole point of documenting operational need as principle.
David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML