. . .
Perhaps its time to set up the Anti-NIC and start allocating addresses from 223.255.255.x on down.
If it weren't so sad, I would find this whole exchange very entertaining. I doubt that creating an anarchy will solve the problem. In the end, the InterNIC is a contractor, and does what they are being told. It is a service provided by the Feds for the better of the community. I am not trying to defend the InterNIC, just saying that they are more or less a robot operating on some guidelines. If you have a robot with better guidelines, more power to you. I suspect the problem is not the robot, but the guidelines (the program it executes). May be the guidelines should be worked on, and I encourage the people who complain on this list to develop better guidelines, then get community consensus, then go to the funding agenci(es) that are responsible for the NICs and present your case to them. If you get that far, I suspect your likelihood of success to achieving a change is above the 95th percentile. I know that both the InterNIC as well as Jon Postel have explicitly asked for guidance from constituents over the years. Seems to me like they have been left alone and now people are complaining, given the reaction on both sites of the addressing space being a scarce resource. Of course, I cannot help the thought that the community could have chosen (extendable) NSAPs years back as part of a CLNP package. Hans-Werner