Forcible reclamation?

[System Administrator]

On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 10:03 AM, Jim Fleming [SMTP:JimFleming at unety.net] 
wrote:
I myself work for a ISP in NC, we have in use over 90% of a /18, we are 
multihomed a t3 connect direct to sprints backbone, and a t1 to another ISP 
which is in turn connected to sprint for address space, the problem however 
is the fact that we are stuck using nonportable address for sprint, should 
we change providers, we get stuck with a large amount of renumbering.  I 
don't mind the renumbering so much, its more along the fact it takes 
forever for sprint to assign us new blocks, and the fact that our blocks 
are spread all over the place.   I have seen plenty of complaints about the 
growth of routing tables, you things like this contribute to routing table 
growth.  I guess the main purpose of my reply is the fact that I WOULD 
definatly sign anything you would put in front of me to get a continuous 
block of portable addresses.

David Wimsey

>
> 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
>