Forcible reclamation?

[Jeff Williams]

David and all,

David R. Conrad wrote:
> 
> Karl,
> 
> There are three related issues the registries are getting hit over the
> head to fix:
> 
> 1) limitiation on address space
> 
> 2) limitations of router forwarding table space
> 
> 3) limitations of router CPU for processing updates.
> 
> While my understanding is that the current criticality ordering of
> these resources is 3, 2, 1, this does NOT mean that limitation on
> address space is not a concern.  Revocation would simply mean that it
> would continue to be third in the prioritization.

  I agree with your evaluation of the major problems that the registries
are getting hit over the head with and your evaluation with their
priorities.
What I DO NOT agree with is your evaluation from an InterNic/ARIN
evaluation of revocation of address space.  From the tennor of the
comments
made by some Board members on this list, Revocation and sevear limiting
of allocations seems to be their priority.
> 
> Regards,
> -drc
> --------
> >
> >> I propose that Internic reclaim any registered block over one year old
> >> which is not advertised in the global routing tables
> >
> >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.
> >
> >               --karl--
> >
> >
> >

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com