- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Class "B" forsale (fwd)
by Jim Fleming 10 Mar '97

10 Mar '97

On Monday, March 10, 1997 2:53 PM, Michael Shields[SMTP:shields@crosslink.net] wrote: @ > Analogies are sometimes useful when trying to explain @ > complex technical problems to a non-technical person. @ @ So? This is *nanog*. Where are the non-technical people here? @ @ The thread should be over on piara or something anyway. @ -- @ Shields, CrossLink. @ @ Here is my new "standard answer"... the executive summary is..this can be moved to "newdom"... @@@ Some people spend a lot of time trying to divide groups and partition the Internet to prevent things from getting started. This usually shows up in the form of comments about some mailing list having a narrow charter and postings being "off-topic". The "newdom" list has evolved to a point where it has a narrow charter in a broad Industry. That narrow charter can be best described to be a "write-only" archival place where topics related to the Registry Industry can be placed for safe, reliable storage and future reference. With such a narrow charter, "newdom" becomes a low-traffic Usenet. People that subscribe to "newdom" might find themselves like a person trying to read all of the articles flowing from a Usenet "feed". If you find yourself in that situation, you might want to find a list with a broader charter such as the eDNS, IAHC or ARIN lists... <http://www.edns.net> <http://www.iahc.org> <http://www.arin.net> Also, people probably should not assume that because "newdom" is used on a CC that there is a active "newdom" group that follows the thread. In many cases, "newdom" is quietly doing the narrow job of archiving... and it appears to do an excellent job of it... It may not be fancy, but it is accurate... Thanks to Richard Sexton for his reliable service to "newdom"...the list for New Directions in Oxygen Marketing...is that narrow or broad...? -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the Newdom mailing list, newdom(a)vrx.net. To subscribe or unsubscribe or get help , send the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" or "help" in the body (not subject) to newdom-request(a)vrx.net -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

RE: IP Address Assets
by Jim Fleming 10 Mar '97

10 Mar '97

On Monday, March 10, 1997 5:33 PM, Alex P. Rudnev[SMTP:alex@Relcom.EU.net] wrote: @ > On Sunday, March 09, 1997 11:42 PM, Tom Glover[SMTP:tomg@boiled.egg.com] wrote: @ > @ @ > @ Good question! Would the bankrupt court consider the address space as a @ > @ sellable asset? @ > @ @ > @ > I believe that you will find the answer to be yes... @ I believe... yes, I believe... Through it was not joke but serious @ question; and I hope you get serious answer... @ @ Please, pay attention to the fact - IP numbers are not selled, they cost @ nothing; but they are important part of the assets ISP does have... DO @ you think it'll be forever - the thing _cost nothing_ but _is limited_ @ and _is important_...? @ IP Addresses cost a fortune... All of the time, energy, travel, consultants fees, etc. that go into obtaining IP addresses are part of the cost. @ No matter if _there exist big nabobs_ or _not_... Everything is relative @ - there is one set of _big nabobs_ there i Russia; there is another set @ in Europe, and 3'th set in USA (and some _USA's nabobs_ have not any real @ weight in Russia, for example_). But the truths is _we would not see a @ lot of existing ISP in a few next years_ (in USA, in Russia, in Europe - @ I am not market man and don't like to predict future). And I dislike to @ have a lot of flame in the mail lists, a lot of wasted address space in @ IP numbers, and a lot of routing problems when this small ISP would be @ joined, merged, splitted etc... @ When people have to start paying to be routed then this will end. I have suggested that ISPs be given a /18 only after they produce signed routing agreements from 2 providers with a minimum bandwidth on each connection of 1.5 Mbps or better. The key is the system has to be objective. It does not have to be easy it just has to be fair for all. Also, the system should not favor companies with the resources to drive or fly to Fairfax County Virginia or companies that can open an office there or companies that can spend hours on the phone from Moscow to that location. The IP resources need to be placed under proper management and closer to the people that need them. Geographic considerations have to be taken into account because sometimes local situations must be fully understood to do the proper job. @ I do not know if InterNIC's people think about this, or they allow @ everything to flow as it's flowing itself. But the time of academic's @ Internet is over, and new players are appeared on the playboard... @ De facto European ISP buy address space, because they pay for the IP @ registry; and this helps to keep address space. You can blame to those @ who sells class-B networks; but if they would not sell them, nobody use @ this address space at all (nobody cause them to free this space)... @ Yes...the academics are now off playing with IPv6... Unfortunately, the real problem is the psuedo-government crowd. These are people who work for the governments but no one in the government knows what they do and when things get hot they step outside of the government arena and claim to be non-government. It can drive a new company nuts. Imagine a company going to a government office to get a business license and finding that it was the company's competitor issuing the license... @ It's important to go between scilla and charibda (sorry, I am not sure @ about spelling this names in English); I have when american's NIC began @ to ask money for the top level domains, but can't get this money by any @ acceptable ways (and a lot of people over the world send faxes, try to @ call them by phone etc because they have not enougph phones and peoples @ to do their work); I am afraid if class-B network would cost 60,000$ @ (it's not too great for the _big nabobs_ or for the old ISP but it's @ serious barrier for the small ISP in the small countries - let's imagine @ some ISP in the Georgia, for example, or some scientific institute in @ Armenia)... @ Your regions need to have IP resources placed in the region's hands for proper management. As you point out it is a huge barrier to entry to try to sit on the phone and FAX from a different part of the world. The time-zone difference can be a bigg difference. When you are fresh they are beat (or sleeping) and vice versa... @ Cleanly it's not good place _nanog_ to discuss there, but I don't see @ another one while... @ <http://www.arin.net> is suggested by many but in my opinion, ARIN is being rail-roaded through the decision-making process to help solve some very well-known problems that are mostly local to the NSF, NSI, and the InterNIC. ARIN mostly helps NSI. @ > @ > Companies in the U.S. should probably consult with their @ > CPAs and attorneys on how the IRS handles assets such @ > as IP addresses. @ > @ > This is especially important if an asset is required without @ > any payment being made. If a /8 is worth $1,000,000 and @ > some company is arbitrarily given one of these to help @ > their "start-up" get venture capital, then that asset is a @ > key to obtaining the funding and is part of the capitalization @ > of the company. @ > @ > The organization "giving" the "start-up" that block, could @ > be viewed as an "equity" partner or stockholder in the @ > start-up. If the start-up raised $4,000,000 and added the @ > block to their Balance Sheet then that asset would be @ > 20% of the company. That can be a significant ownership @ > interest in a start-up, subject to the 5% limits. @ > @ > Again...I suggest that companies make sure they understand @ > the value of their IP assets and how to account for that value. @ > <trim> -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

RE: Class "B" forsale (fwd)
by Jim Fleming 10 Mar '97

10 Mar '97

On Monday, March 10, 1997 9:13 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh@internic.net] wrote: @ > @ > What is the InterNIC policy on the sale of class Bs? @ > -- @ > From: Joseph T. Klein, Titania Corporation http://www.titania.net @ > E-mail: jtk(a)titania.net Sent: 22:10:20 CST/CDT 03/09/97 @ @ The InterNIC's policy is what's stated in rFC2050. An organization @ must justify the utilization efficiency of address space. They need @ to justify it whether they request it from a regional registry, whether @ they buy it or whether they received it for Xmas. @ @ The way I look at it is, an organization received address space because @ of information they listed on an IP template. They had a requirement @ for this amount of IP numbers. Even if they received it long ago when @ it was easier to get addresses, they still had to show some kind of @ requirement. If they no longer have a requirement for the address, @ they should return it. @ ISPs have a very small percentage of the IP address allocations. Despite this, ISPs endure most of the pain. Why not focus on this 25% of the addess space first...? CA 0.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-1) CA 1.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-9) CA 2.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-2) NJ 3.0.0.0 General Electric Company (NET-GE-INTERNET) MA 4.0.0.0 BBN Planet (NET-SATNET) CA 5.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-5) AZ 6.0.0.0 Army Information Systems Center (NET-YPG-NET) CA 7.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-11) MA 8.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBN-NET-TEMP) NY 9.0.0.0 IBM Corporation (NET-IBM) CA 10.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-6) CA 11.0.0.0 DoD Intel Information Systems (NET-DODIIS) FL 12.0.0.0 AT&T ITS (NET-ATT) CA 13.0.0.0 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (NET-XEROX-NET) CA 14.0.0.0 Public Data Network (NET-PDN) CA 15.0.0.0 Hewlett-Packard Company (NET-HP-INTERNET) CA 16.0.0.0 Digital Equipment Corporation (NET-DEC-INTERNET) CA 17.0.0.0 Apple Computer, Inc. (NET-APPLE-WWNET) MA 18.0.0.0 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (NET-MIT-TEMP) MI 19.0.0.0 Ford Motor Company (NET-FINET) VA 20.0.0.0 Computer Sciences Corporation (NET-CSC) VA 21.0.0.0 DDN-RVN (NET-DDN-RVN) DC 22.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-DISNET) CA 23.0.0.0 IANA (NET-DDN-TC-NET) CA 24.0.0.0 @Home Network (NETBLK-ATHOME) ATHOME 24.0.0.0 - 24.3.255.0 UK 25.0.0.0 Royal Signals and Radar Establishment (NET-RSRE-EXP) VA 26.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-MILNET) CA 27.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-10) VA 28.0.0.0 ARPA DSI JPO (NET-DSI-NORTH) DC 29.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-MILX25-TEMP) DC 30.0.0.0 Defense Information Systems Agency (NET-ARPAX25-TEMP) CA 31.0.0.0 IANA (RESERVED-12) Norway 32.0.0.0 Norsk Informasjonsteknologi (NET-NORGESNETT) OH 33.0.0.0 DLA Systems Automation Center (NET-DCMC) TX 34.0.0.0 Halliburton Company (NET-HALLIBURTON) MI 35.0.0.0 Merit Network Inc. (NET-MERIT) CA 36.0.0.0 Stanford University (NET-SU-NET-TEMP) CA 37.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-37A) VA 38.0.0.0 Performance Systems International (NET-PSINETA) CA 39.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED-39A) IN 40.0.0.0 Eli Lilly and Company (NET-LILLY-NET) CA 41.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (RESERVED-41A) CA 42.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-42) Japan 43.0.0.0 Japan Inet (NET-JAPAN-A) CA 44.0.0.0 Amateur Radio Digital Communications (NET-AMPRNET) CA 45.0.0.0 Interop Show Network (NET-SHOWNETA) MA 46.0.0.0 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NET-BBNNET) Canada 47.0.0.0 Bell-Northern Research (NET-BNR) NY 48.0.0.0 Prudential Securities Inc. (NET-PRUBACHE) 49.0.0.0 No match for "49.0.0.0". 50.0.0.0 No match for "50.0.0.0". UK 51.0.0.0 Department of Social Security of UK (NET-ITSANET) DE 52.0.0.0 E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc. (NET-DUPONT1) Germany 53.0.0.0 cap debis ccs (NET-DB-NET2) NJ 54.0.0.0 Merck and Co., Inc. (NET-MERCK2) VA 55.0.0.0 Army National Guard Bureau (NET-RCAS2) NC 56.0.0.0 U.S. Postal Service (NET-USPS1) France 57.0.0.0 SITA-Societe Internationale de Telecommunications Aeronautiques (NET-SITA2) CA 58.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-58) CA 59.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-59) CA 60.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-60) CA 61.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-61) CA 62.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-62) CA 63.0.0.0 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-63) @ Yes, I know many (David and Geoff:-)) are probably calling me Pollyanna @ right about now and it is true that most companies won't return it @ if they think they can sell it. But I think having a procedure in @ place to at least begin reclaiming addresses from those organizations @ that are no longer in business can only help matters. @ I agree...the following posting explains why I do not think ARIN will be able to do that... @@@@@@@@ ---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming@unety.net.] Sent: Monday, March 10, 1997 1:50 PM To: 'John Curran'; Jim Fleming Cc: 'Leo Smith'; 'Tim Bass'; 'Bradley Dunn'; 'Christopher Sevcik'; 'ckuehn(a)nsf.gov'; 'dont(a)netsol.com'; 'gstrawn(a)nsf.gov'; 'Jay Fenello'; 'Justin W. Newton'; 'Kent Landfield'; 'lsundro(a)nsf.gov'; 'Peter J. de Blanc' Subject: RE: InterNIC 2000 Summary On Monday, March 10, 1997 1:36 PM, John Curran[SMTP:jcurran@bbnplanet.com] wrote: @ >Comments...? @ @ With respect to 10 regional NIC's performing IP allocations @ without providing connectivity, you'll need a plan for how @ routing announcements from such assignments will be handled. @ The plan can be as simple as hand-waving and saying that @ technology will allow an order-of-magnitude growth in the @ routing calculations, but you should at least record the @ assumption. @ @ /John @ @ p.s. Proposed ARIN Board member @ p.p.s. Newdom dropped from cc intentionally, @ as my comment is IP registry specific. @ Thanks for the comment. Once again, I will point out that the /8s will be assigned for management purposes. The goal is NOT to hand out virgin /8s to cause a run on the IPv4 address space to fill the router tables with a massive number of entries. Those are FUD notions and are not the objective. The objective is to bring the IP address space under proper management and funding and to get more people involved to help work with reclamation and ecology as well as aggressive aggregation plans. This can only happen in Regions because some of this work takes "local knowledge". Also, more people means more eyes and ears and more attention to seeing IP space that has been abandoned or is being wasted. Moving the current small InterNIC group to another small ARIN group is not the solution. We need to get more people involved, more adults involved and get the Internet on a track where the entire world community can feel the stable structures and continue to invest. P.S. ARIN list not added because ARIN is aimed at solving a local InterNIC problem that will quickly go away when we all work together on a coherent plan that encompasses, NSF, NSI, the SBA, the FNC, the U.S. Government and the many people and companies that have invested time and energy on the emerging Registry Industry. P.P.S. Newdom is a "whiteboard" archive for many Registry Industry issues...it is mostly write-only...and has a reliable operator who does not erase messages... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

RE: Class "B" forsale (fwd)
by Jim Fleming 10 Mar '97

10 Mar '97

On Monday, March 10, 1997 8:47 AM, Alex P. Rudnev[SMTP:alex@Relcom.EU.net] wrote: @ Hmm, let's make your questions more complex - if I own ISP and this ISP @ bacame bankrupt, wpuld it's address space be - selled, returned, owned by @ it's customers, etc... ??? @ @ In the current system, because there is no active "renewal fee" system or no aggressive ecology or reclamation,. it will likely become forgotten and abandoned... Of course, if this was space obtained from an "upstream provider" then it was never the ISP's to begin with and the "upstream" pulls it back and gives it to someone else... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

RE: Cayman Island Scenarios
by Jim Fleming 10 Mar '97

10 Mar '97

On Monday, March 10, 1997 9:03 AM, Alex P. Rudnev[SMTP:alex@Relcom.EU.net] wrote: @ > @ Say I 'own' the fictional block 223.101.0.0, its swipped to me, everything @ > @ is in order as it should be. I decide for whatever reason to turn off my @ > @ routers, sell my equipment and move to the Caymans to enjoy the rest of my @ > @ life. I now have two choices, 1: Return my block to ARIN, or 2: Sell my @ > @ block to someone else and make a small (or large for that matter, I'm sure I @ > @ could sell it for a interesting sum of money) profit. @ Hmm, I just asked the same question... If you'll sell your business, why @ do you think somebody buy your routers withouth your address space? If @ somebody buy yoy ISP business this somebody need your address space to @ continue IP service... @ I agree, many of these IP allocation notions seem to come from people who have never had to worry about the business end of the ISP operation... IP addresses are now valuable assets. Businesses may have to show them on their books. In order to do that, they may have to show that they "own" the addresses. For some companies it might be best to purchase their addresses to prove this ownership. This is an area that is rapidly gaining more attention from CPAs and attorneys that have to protect corporate assets, especially when shareholders are involved from the general public. @ > @ scenario 1: @ > @ @ > @ It gets returned and some other poor fool has to jump through flaming hoops @ > @ and surive a pool of toxic waste to get a few IPs. @ > @ @ > @ scenario 2: @ > @ @ > @ I change all the records to point to them, swip it out to them, basically do @ > @ everything needed to make them the legitimate 'owners' of that block, they @ > @ pay me a nice lump of cash and we're both happy. @ > @ @ > @ As I see it, changing ownership of IPs is no different than changing @ > @ ownership of a domain. @ > @ @ > @ > @ > Scenario 3: @ > @ > You sell the entire company before turning off the routers and @ > the block stays with the operation on a lease arrangement. @ > It eventually gets absorbed into a larger ISP and lost on the @ > books in the mega transaction. @ > @ > Scenario 4: @ > @ > You move to the Cayman Islands and set up a competing @ > "NIC". One of the NICs currently operates out of the @ > Seychelles, so maybe the Caymans are the next best @ > place to start an address NIC. @ > @ > Question: When companies like MCI and Bellcore get bought, @ > do they have to turn all of their blocks back into the "NIC" @ > and start over...;-) @ Aga...(yes, in english...). @ @ Or if MCI splits into 2 new companies, would it retirn it's address @ space to the NIC? -:) @ I would assume that assets would be handled as assets... Companies should probably make sure they "own" their assets... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1

RE: Class "B" forsale (fwd)
by Jim Fleming 10 Mar '97

10 Mar '97

On Monday, March 10, 1997 8:34 AM, Alex P. Rudnev[SMTP:alex@Relcom.EU.net] wrote: @ Hi. It's not good idea to discusse _can we /NIC/ allow or can we @ disallow_. @ More interesting is _how to prevent address space wasting_ and _how to @ prevent extra payements..._. @ @ If you'll disallow class B selling, Internet would lost 256*256 @ addresses, because this class B network would be unused (and somebody @ would use class C networks instead_. It's bad thing, isn't it? @ @ On the other hand, if you'll allow free saling of the address space, @ internet would be the homeplace of the big nabobs who can bye total @ address space and break down small competitors (and even small @ countries); it'll mean the deaths of the Internet, isn't it? @ This is the case now...upstream providers are the "big nabobs"... they do not incur the costs of renumbering, they do not get concerned when they make a bid to a customer, they have the resources to deliver. They may not have paid for these resources but they have them...just check the records... @ I do not know how would NOC go between this _scilla_ and _charibda_, but @ it's one of this important questions the internet's future depends of. @ @ Yes...some people feel this is a very important area.... unfortunately, the solutions being proposed favor the "big nabobs"... -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

1 0

Class "B" forsale (fwd)
by Michael Dillon 10 Mar '97

10 Mar '97

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 12:06:35 -0800 From: Norman Gillaspie <norman(a)pc-sat.com> Reply-To: inet-access(a)earth.com To: inet-access(a)earth.com Subject: Class "B" forsale Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 13:07:47 -0700 (MST) Resent-From: inet-access(a)earth.com One class "B" Internet address available to the highest bidder. Please call 415-854-5263 and leave a message if interested. Please referance the above. Satellite delivered usenet news via satellite. conserve your expensive internet connection and machine resources. Get a really current feed. Contact PC-Sat 415-854-5262 or HTTP://www.pc-sat.com ============================== ISP Mailing List ============================== Email ``unsubscribe'' to inet-access-request(a)earth.com to be removed. Experience varies directly with equipment ruined.

17 25

Cayman Island Scenarios
by Jim Fleming 10 Mar '97

10 Mar '97

On Sunday, March 09, 1997 1:09 AM, Brett L. Hawn[SMTP:blh@nol.net] wrote: @ On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, David R. Conrad wrote: <snip> @ @ Say I 'own' the fictional block 223.101.0.0, its swipped to me, everything @ is in order as it should be. I decide for whatever reason to turn off my @ routers, sell my equipment and move to the Caymans to enjoy the rest of my @ life. I now have two choices, 1: Return my block to ARIN, or 2: Sell my @ block to someone else and make a small (or large for that matter, I'm sure I @ could sell it for a interesting sum of money) profit. @ @ scenario 1: @ @ It gets returned and some other poor fool has to jump through flaming hoops @ and surive a pool of toxic waste to get a few IPs. @ @ scenario 2: @ @ I change all the records to point to them, swip it out to them, basically do @ everything needed to make them the legitimate 'owners' of that block, they @ pay me a nice lump of cash and we're both happy. @ @ As I see it, changing ownership of IPs is no different than changing @ ownership of a domain. @ Scenario 3: You sell the entire company before turning off the routers and the block stays with the operation on a lease arrangement. It eventually gets absorbed into a larger ISP and lost on the books in the mega transaction. Scenario 4: You move to the Cayman Islands and set up a competing "NIC". One of the NICs currently operates out of the Seychelles, so maybe the Caymans are the next best place to start an address NIC. Question: When companies like MCI and Bellcore get bought, do they have to turn all of their blocks back into the "NIC" and start over...;-) -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation e-mail: JimFleming(a)unety.net JimFleming(a)unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)

2 1

Re: Class "B" forsale (fwd)
by Len Rose 10 Mar '97

10 Mar '97

I remember going through hell writing the justification for this network. I didn't know the NIC would allow sale of address space. Len At 01:47 PM 3/8/97 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 12:06:35 -0800 >From: Norman Gillaspie <norman(a)pc-sat.com> >Reply-To: inet-access(a)earth.com >To: inet-access(a)earth.com >Subject: Class "B" forsale >Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 13:07:47 -0700 (MST) >Resent-From: inet-access(a)earth.com > >One class "B" Internet address available to the highest bidder. >Please call 415-854-5263 and leave a message if interested. > >Please referance the above. >Satellite delivered usenet news via satellite. >conserve your expensive internet connection and >machine resources. Get a really current feed. >Contact PC-Sat 415-854-5262 or HTTP://www.pc-sat.com > >============================== ISP Mailing List ============================== >Email ``unsubscribe'' to inet-access-request(a)earth.com to be removed. >Experience varies directly with equipment ruined. > > len(a)netsys.com http://www.netsys.com

5 4

Re: Class "B" forsale (fwd)
by Ichiro Mizukoshi 10 Mar '97

10 Mar '97

Hi, Let me toss an Idea to encourage people to return address space. *) Charge to NIC's (whole) IP Database Entry as maintenace fee. It will A) discourage people to store "not used addresses". B) Charging refresh the Database Entry, regullaly. So, addresses will not be lost. C) Cost of the database maintenace should be payed by someone. Even the address was allocated/assigned. P.S. Database Entry is not the IP address. It's a set of IP addresses, its administrative responsible is the same. Regards, Ichiro Mizukoshi e-mail(office):ichiro@TokyoNet.ad.jp Tel:+81-3-3341-6301 Fax:+81-3-3341-6305 From: "David R. Conrad" <davidc(a)apnic.net> Subject: Re: Class "B" forsale (fwd) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:52:29 +0900 > 2) what incentive do you propose to give to encourage people to > return address space to the pool of "usable" addresses? Given > that they have not done so already, it is safe to assume "for > the good of the Internet" is not sufficient.

1 0