Forcible reclamation?

[Karl Denninger]

On Tue, Jul 08, 1997 at 02:29:50AM -0400, Jon Lewis 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_______

There is no shortage of address space.

In fact, approximately half of all possible address space is currently
"reserved" by the IANA.

If we reclaimed JUST the old Class "A" space which was being utilized at 10%
or less of allocated space (a full 80% reduction from existing guidelines)
we'd recover, I'd guess, 90% of the addresses in the range of 1. to 63 which
are currently assigned to someone.

Of course, MIT might not like it, nor PSI.  Tough noogies.  The rest of us
have to deal with renumbering, right?  Why is it that all of a sudden
certain institutions and ISPs have precedence and don't have to renumber,
while everyone else does?

If you want a place that the DOJ *should* be looking at for evidence of
anticompetitive behavior (ala their recent look at NSI) this is precisely
where to focus the beams.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl     | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
			     | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines!
Fax:   [+1 312 803-4929]     | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal