Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
Michael Dillon michael at memra.com
Mon Jan 29 23:48:17 CET 1996
On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Peter Galbavy wrote: > ISPs are not given the opportunity to apply for topological *and* > portable address space (eg we are multihomed to the US - Sprint > allocations are not "good enough") from the InterNIC - we are sent > to the RIPE NCC because our physical location happens to be within > a geographical domain managed by the RIPE NCC. You are the biggest ISP in Europe aren't you? How big? Couldn't you spend a few quid on incorporating Demon Internet Services Inc. in the USA? Wouldn't you then be eligible for IP addresses from the US Internic? > > Demon is statically assigning IP addresses to dialup customers on a > > large scale. This results in adresses being used per customer and not > > per dial-in port. Obviously then number of customers is less limited > > than that of dial in ports. There is concern about the wastefulness of > > this practise on a large scale and the non-linear effects it could have > > on address space usage. Hence it is *global*, read IANA, policy to > > strongly discourage this practise and not to allocate more addresses > > than three months worth of usage. This is not just an NCC policy! > > In the way we assign numbers, it is very linear. Just not all the hosts > are reachable all the time. We return ICMP Host Unreacable from our core > routers when a dial up customer is not logged in. I will try to explain In a classless IPV4 world in which the old Class A address area is in production use, would we have enough available IP addresses for providers to do this on a large scale assuming that they would have near 100% utilization in the blocks that were being allocated statically? Didn't the experiment with 39/8 show that it was safe to allocate classlessly out of the old Class A addresses? Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael at memra.com
[ lir-wg Archives ]