Forcible reclamation?

[Jeff Williams]

Paul,

Paul Ferguson wrote:
> 
> At 09:09 AM 07/08/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> >  Agreed.  That is why we should be looking at adding more address space
> >as a priority rather than imposing restrictions on allocations as a
> >priority.  I agree that if we can reclaim space that is not being used,
> >than this avenue should of course be exploited.  BUT FIRST and FORMOST
> >providing new and additional address space should be the #1 priority.
> >This however does not seem to be the case according to the tennor of
> >the discussion on this list, nor form statments made by Board members
> >of ARIN.
> 
> Deja vu. A discussion on this topic usually always results in
> someone stating that more address space is needed.

  Yes.  And it is obviously.
> 
> I disagree that increasing the address space is the most
> important gaol here. In fact, I'm not sure it even rates
> in the top five, at least not in the near term.

  Your opinion.  Not the majorities.
> 
> I should remind you that the only avenue to expanding the IP address
> space is a migration to IPv6. This only solves the "problem" of
> address space scarcity in the IPv4 address space, and incidentally,
> introduces a whole new set of problems.

  I agree that the "ONLY" current migration plan is to Ipv6 for
additional
space.  I don't agree that it is the best solution or "ONLY POSSIBLE"
solution.  Let me be clear on that point!  And yes, there will be 
problems.  As in any migration process.  So what else is new?  >;)
> 
> Again (and I have stated this on multiple occasions), increasing
> the address space as a method to do an end-around the allocation
> policies is a fatally flawed line of reason. If the allocation
> policies are not in place with IPv6 address allocation to ensure
> that some semblance of aggregation is preserved, then we have
> created a more critical problem.

  You misunderstood my comments again, Paul, as usual.  I am not saying
that allocating more address space is "THE SOLUTION" but certianly
a part of a "COMPLETE" solution.  I agree that assemblance of
aggregation
is "VERY" necessary, but part of a whole solution, not a solution in and
of itself.  A parallel approace seems necessary here.  That is what I am
saying!  GOT IT NOW PAUL!  OR do I need to outline a complete plan
for you?
> 
> If you do not understand this, then you do not understand the
> intricacies in the global routing system.

  Well I do understand it quite well thanks.  I submit you need to read
my comments more carefully befor making difinitive statments that are
both out of context and misleading.
> 
> - paul

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