Hi,
Here's an idea. Let new ISP's reserve large blocks (say /16's) in 65/8, 66/8, .... but don't let them actually use these addresses on the global Internet. Then, the ISP can run a Network Address Translation gateway and
Why not use net 10 and leave the NATs in?
Of course, there is one little problem with this.... bash$ whois 65 Air Force Logistics Command (ASN-LOGNET) LOGNET-AS 65 bash$ whois 96 Army Finance and Accounting Office (ASN-JTELS) JTELS-BEN1-AS 96 How did these guys get such big chunks of address space reserved?
You're probably gonna regret that one: you're looking at AS numbers, not networks. Now, let see how many people tell you the same thing :-).
I think that the fundamental problem here is that the Internic is fundamentally clueless about important issues such as global routing
Bullshit. The InterNIC is very much aware of global routing issues.
and *BUSINESS* issues.
What business issues are you talking about?
They are behaving a lot like a government bureaucracy or a regulatory agency.
The registries are simply following the policy as defined by the Internet community at large. Read RFC 1466, 1814, and the latest internet draft on allocation policy. If the Internet community were to define new policies, the registries would implement those as well. Currently, there is a small bit of contradiction in what small ISPs and end users want and what the larger ISPs (and what is necessary to keep the Internet from partitioning) want. But, both sides are more than happy to scream and whine at the registries for not doing the "right" thing.
I don't really see how this can be fixed with the current system of having a US government agency writing a contract with a private US company to provide a fundamental international infrastructure service!
The US government agency could get out of the way, but the squeals of outrage when InterNIC started charging US $50/year for domain name registrations leads me to believe it will be a while before any sort of rational allocation policy can be imposed. Regards, -drc