Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
David Miller david at dirigo.mint.net
Fri Feb 2 20:29:09 CET 1996
On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Howard Berkowitz wrote: > > > We are working on the 192.x.x.x swamp right now. > > > Rough estimates (with much more accurate data @ NANOG) > > > > > > 60% - invalid or missing contact information > > > > This is interesting. How about a policy that says if nobody can contact you > > and none of your addresses are reachable, then after some period, your > > addresses get recycled. > > > > > By addresses not being reachable, are you effectively saying that any > enterprise that does not want to connect to the Internet must use > RFC1597 address space? > > Anyone have an idea how much of the address space is used for > registered addresses of organizations that do not connect to the Internet? I would also be curious how the 60% missing is counted. If an organization places 99% of their addresses behind a firewall do all those not count? Unfortunately, I don't think we can base much policy on whether or what % of addresses are reachable from the internet. --- David Miller ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's *amazing* what one can accomplish when one doesn't know what one can't do!
[ lir-wg Archives ]