Forcible reclamation?

[Jim Fleming]

On Monday, July 07, 1997 9:29 PM, Jon Lewis[SMTP:jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net] wrote:
@ On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Karl Auerbach wrote:
@ 
@ > If a block is not being advertised, then it is not filling router table
@ > space.
@ > 
@ > And since our underlying problem is router table space, not the number
@ > prefixes available, revocation won't help fix the underlying problem.
@ 
@ If there were no shortage of address space, every multihomed ISP could be
@ given a /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_______
@ 
@ 
@ 

Rather than deprive everyone, it might be better to allocate
some set number of new allocations each year or quarter.

I suggest 3,000 /18s should be made available, with the
prior agreement that the delegate (ISP?) not advertise
more specific routes from those blocks and that proof
be supplied of at least 2 connections to the IPv4 Core
Transport Network with at a minimum of 1.544 bps on
each connection.

It would be interesting to compile a list of which ISPs
would sign up for such an allocation. Are there 3,000 ?

If 3,000 ISPs sign a petition in the U.S., then the FTC,
IRS, SEC, DOJ and Department of Commerce can work
that into their current activities. Without such proof, the
people working to prevent further allocations can claim
there is no demand.

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation