Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
Hank Nussbacher HANK at VM.TAU.AC.IL
Sun Feb 4 08:06:49 CET 1996
On Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:29:09 -0500 (EST) you said: >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? If you have a class B and use a firewall, then a /27 should be more than is needed on the global Internet and they should use an address from RFC1597 internally and return the /16. > >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! > Hank
[ lir-wg Archives ]