Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

Here's an interesting thought on the whole thing...

I've sort of noticed that the opinion of several people is that the way 
that the internic allocates IP numbers is "space efficient".

CIDR routing on the other hand is considered "routing table efficient".

I felt like digging through 205.* and 206.*, at least at the start.  
I did a whois on 205.0.0.0 and then looked at the last used # in the 
allocated block, and then did a whois on that #.  For CIDR blocks, I was 
jumping over the entire block, as listed in the whois. 

>From this it looks like the internic is allocating a large number of 
prefixes longer than /18.  Am I wrong in stating that (assuming that 
Sprint's policy is unchangable) any IP numbers allocated with a prefix 
longer than /19 in 205 and /18 in 206 is essentially wasted space, which 
is unusable, at least if you want connectivity with sprint?

If this is the case, then I'd imagine that the allocation policies of 
certain registries (most notably the internic) of netblocks smaller than 
/18 is very address space inefficient.

-forrestc at imach.com