On Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 06:53:41AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: ==> ==>>> Return the 172.16.0.0/16 block to the registry (ARIN, APNIC, RIPE or if ==>>> no one else IANA) and apply for multiple appropriately sized CIDR blocks ==>>> under the current registry allocation guidelines. ==>> While I fully agree with this approach to deal with the issues mentioned, ==>> it will only exhaust the new address space more quickly. Why should we ==>> give up on 128/2? ==> ==>because when the registries have different allocation policies in 128/2, ==>the isps will follow. just as we did in old A space. That doesn't address the point -- the point is that these ISP's are forcing the exchange of these blocks for new, previously unallocated space, and leaving holes in the old 128/2 space. These ISP's are massively contributing to the depletion of immediately available address space. Why not adopt a reasonable policy to accept up to /20's or up to /19's in the old B space so that organizations who already have these blocks can use them? /cah