I may be opening a can of worms, and if so, I believe it is one which needs to be opened. If this topic has been beaten to death in the past, then I apologize, however as it is a rapidly evolving topic, it warrants repeated discussion and evaluation. My fundamental questions are: 1. Is InterNIC consistently applying objective criteria in its evaluation of requests for the allocation of IP address blocks? 2. If so, what are the criteria? The INTERNIC IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES FOR INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS states that "allocation is based on the ISP's 3 - 6 month requirement and other information the InterNIC deems necessary". There is no detail provided (in any document I have found) of what other information InterNIC deems to be necessary. I find an apparent conflict between established policy and its actual implementation on a day-to-day basis. CIDR dictates that addresses should be aggregated into the largest blocks possible, and that the publishing of extraneous routes be eliminated. In keeping with this, and because of often discussed operational considerations, the minimum size of blocks routed at the NAPs is growing larger and larger. To ease participation at the national level, you must ensure to the fullest extent possible that your address space is routable as a single block. In order to accomplish this, you must obtain either: A. a single allocation capable of supporting planned growth, or B. incremental allocations of *contiguous* blocks InterNIC's current CIDR allocation practice does not support either of these options. Due to the shortage of *available* IP addresses (there are of course millions of allocated but unused addresses floating around), InterNIC is using a "slow start" approach which provides incremental increases in total address space, with no guarantee that future increments will be contiguous. This means that the only way to maintain efficient routing is to engage in repeated renumbering of customer addresses to consolidate into increasingly larger blocks. How many times is it reasonable to ask a customer to renumber? Once is certainly reasonable. Twice is questionable. More than that and I would suspect the customer would renumber all right, but as part of shifting to a different ISP. The day to day implementation of policy by the InterNIC has increasingly critical impact on our industry, to the point of controlling who has the opportunity to succeed and who does not. IMHO, it is imperative that: 1. this function be performed in an understandable manner, 2. objective criteria be consistently applied 3. the criteria in use be publicly available, and 4. there be defined mechanisms for the 'appeal' of decisions made in the processing of allocation requests. Recent experience and observation leads me to conclude that these imperatives are perhaps not being met. Am I all wet???? -- Jim Browning <jfbb@ATMnet.net> 619/812-2860 Fax 619/812-2867
On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, Jim Browning wrote:
I may be opening a can of worms, and if so, I believe it is one which needs to be opened. If this topic has been beaten to death in the past, then I apologize, however as it is a rapidly evolving topic, it warrants repeated discussion and evaluation. My fundamental questions are:
1. Is InterNIC consistently applying objective criteria in its evaluation of requests for the allocation of IP address blocks? 2. If so, what are the criteria?
The INTERNIC IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES FOR INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS states that "allocation is based on the ISP's 3 - 6 month requirement and other information the InterNIC deems necessary". There is no detail provided (in any document I have found) of what other information InterNIC deems to be necessary.
I find an apparent conflict between established policy and its actual implementation on a day-to-day basis. CIDR dictates that addresses should be aggregated into the largest blocks possible, and that the publishing of extraneous routes be eliminated. In keeping with this, and because of often discussed operational considerations, the minimum size of blocks routed at the NAPs is growing larger and larger. To ease participation at the national level, you must ensure to the fullest extent possible that your address space is routable as a single block. In order to accomplish this, you must obtain either:
This is because the internic is not the one saying /18 or smaller, NSP are doing that. Why should the internic get involved?
A. a single allocation capable of supporting planned growth, or B. incremental allocations of *contiguous* blocks
InterNIC's current CIDR allocation practice does not support either of these options. Due to the shortage of *available* IP addresses (there are of course millions of allocated but unused addresses floating around), InterNIC is using a "slow start" approach which provides incremental increases in total address space, with no guarantee that future increments will be contiguous. This means that the only way to maintain efficient routing is to engage in repeated renumbering of customer addresses to consolidate into increasingly larger blocks.
Yes, well there is no other way of doing it. The days of starting a ISP out of your house and in a few years be a Sprint is falling away. ISP's will just need to get space from there upstream provider and renumber.
How many times is it reasonable to ask a customer to renumber? Once is certainly reasonable. Twice is questionable. More than that and I would suspect the customer would renumber all right, but as part of shifting to a different ISP.
As many as it takes, This is just something you are going to need to deal with. We started with small blocks and had to renumber several times so far. It is just part of growing, until you are a large NSP connected to all the NAPs you will just need to start will small blocks and renumber over and over until you get /18 or smaller.
The day to day implementation of policy by the InterNIC has increasingly critical impact on our industry, to the point of controlling who has the opportunity to succeed and who does not. IMHO, it is imperative that:
1. this function be performed in an understandable manner, 2. objective criteria be consistently applied 3. the criteria in use be publicly available, and 4. there be defined mechanisms for the 'appeal' of decisions made in the processing of allocation requests.
Recent experience and observation leads me to conclude that these imperatives are perhaps not being met. Am I all wet????
This is not something that the internic need to be involved with, one day a NSP is filtering a /19 and larger the next something different. It is not the InterNIC job to get involved with that. ISPs should just get space from there upstream provider. Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Your Gateway to the World! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc. Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5 Email sales@netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Access: (703) 524-4802 guest --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, Jim Browning wrote:
A. a single allocation capable of supporting planned growth, or B. incremental allocations of *contiguous* blocks
InterNIC's current CIDR allocation practice does not support either of these options.
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 give their customers 65/8 addresses while still using a chunk from their provider's block. And they can switch providers without forcing their customers to renumber. Then, after they have demonstrated that they should be given a /16, open up the block they were given in 65/8 for use without the NAT. Of course, there is one little problem with this.... bash$ whois 65 Air Force Logistics Command (ASN-LOGNET) LOGNET-AS 65 IANA (RESERVED-7) Reserved 64.0.0.0 - 95.0.0.0 bash$ whois 96 Army Finance and Accounting Office (ASN-JTELS) JTELS-BEN1-AS 96 IANA (RESERVED-8) Reserved 96.0.0.0 - 126.0.0.0 How did these guys get such big chunks of address space reserved?
The day to day implementation of policy by the InterNIC has increasingly critical impact on our industry, to the point of controlling who has the opportunity to succeed and who does not. IMHO, it is imperative that:
1. this function be performed in an understandable manner, 2. objective criteria be consistently applied 3. the criteria in use be publicly available, and 4. there be defined mechanisms for the 'appeal' of decisions made in the processing of allocation requests.
Recent experience and observation leads me to conclude that these imperatives are perhaps not being met. Am I all wet????
I think that the fundamental problem here is that the Internic is fundamentally clueless about important issues such as global routing and *BUSINESS* issues. They are behaving a lot like a government bureaucracy or a regulatory agency. 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! Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
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
On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, David R. Conrad wrote:
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?
Indeed! RFC1918 addresses work fine for me on my LAN at home and this week I will be connecting a corporate LAN also using RFC1918 addresses behind a single static IP address. In both cases I am using a FreeBSD box with proxies like CERN httpd and TIS Firewall Toolkit to transfer the traffic rather than a full-blown NAT. More ISP's should be doing this IMHO.
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.
Then why have they not yet come up with a workable policy like the one RIPE uses to release /16 blocks incrementally to new ISP's?
and *BUSINESS* issues.
What business issues are you talking about?
Basically, the market demand is INCREDIBLY HIGH and businesses want to build up infrastructure to meet this demand but the Internic IP address allocation procedures are too confusing and take too long.
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 wonder if the main problem isn't simply that not enough people know how to have an impact on Internet policy as expressed in the RFC's. A heck of a lot of people starting ISP's have backgrounds in business, LAN's and BBS operation but they just don't know how the Internet works or where they can comment on Internet policy. *sigh*
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.
Those squeals disappeared darn fast! Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
Bullshit. The InterNIC is very much aware of global routing issues. Then why have they not yet come up with a workable policy like the one RIPE uses to release /16 blocks incrementally to new ISP's?
All 3 registries have essentially the same policy with respect to the growth of new blocks. However, given InterNIC's load, the end effect may be different (remember, InterNIC receives approximately 50 new ISP requests per week -- how much space should they reserve for new ISPs?).
What business issues are you talking about? Basically, the market demand is INCREDIBLY HIGH and businesses want to build up infrastructure to meet this demand but the Internic IP address allocation procedures are too confusing and take too long.
Your proposal is? If you say charging for address space, please explain what would stop deep pocket companies from buying up all the address space? Regards, -drc
David R. Conrad writes:
Your proposal is? If you say charging for address space, please explain what would stop deep pocket companies from buying up all the address space?
David, I know that you know what you're doing technically, but you have no clue about how a free market works (and, by implication, I do -- not very humble I guess. Oh well. Deal.) Assume with me, that a market for IP addresses has been created (just like the Internic did when they said that they would cooperate with the transfer of domain names from one party to another, and that any trademark was sufficient to hold a domain name). Doesn't matter who owns them first -- the market will decide on a price. Further assume that AT&T (hey, I'm a stockholder so I get to pick on them) wants all the IP addresses in the world. Problem is that they have to buy them from the current owners. The owners need somewhere between a few and all of them. But not zero. The cost of giving up all of their addresses is ALL OF THEIR BUSINESS. If they're tired of being an ISP, they might be willing to go out of business. But let's say that they're not. So they sell their address block to AT&T. The problem for AT&T is that some people WON'T want to go out of business at any price (e.g. Sprint or MCI). AT&T would have to purchase up all of their business, that is, merge with them. That would take a lot of money. No, that would take a LOT OF MONEY, because as soon as the stockholders realized that AT&T was trying to get a monopoly on IP addresses, they would want their fair share of the monopoly. So the price of Sprint and/or MCI stock would go up. Way up. All out of proportion to the income from Sprint's or MCI's ISP business. AT&T couldn't get away with monopoly profits without sharing them with the current IP address holders. And it gets worse -- network address translation software exists, so the ISP who sold his business to AT&T could start up another business, buying only one address, compete with AT&T, and (because AT&T is seeking monopoly profits) sell this business to AT&T again. One Texas oilman sold three successive refineries to Standard Oil. And it gets worse -- just WHAT is the meaning of "owning" an IP address. Hell, I could claim to own all the class A addresses (in fact, I actually do -- I've just never asserted my claim [ yet -- you'll be hearing from my lawyer]). An IP address is just an entry in a database, without the cooperation of all the backbone providers. So AT&T buys all the addresses; everyone laughs at them, and starts up another Internet in parallel with AT&T's, and puts a network address translator between the new Internet, and AT&T's old Internet. See? -russ <nelson@crynwr.com> http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | PGP ok 11 Grant St. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | If you would seek peace, Potsdam, NY 13676 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | first seek freedom
"David R. Conrad" writes:
Your proposal is? If you say charging for address space, please explain what would stop deep pocket companies from buying up all the address space?
If you start charging for food, what would stop deep pocket companies from buying up all the food? If you start charging rent for apartments, what would stop deep pocket companies from renting all the apartments? Perry
Well Perry, I basically agree with you. But there is perhaps a reasonable concern that any price which is reasonable to the little guy might be an unfair opportunity for the big guy to corner the little guy out. I know, you have arguments how you hope this won't happen, but then again we're dealing with a rather artificial resource (meaning, more like the breakup of AT&T, going from a non-privatized, regulated system to a purely privatized one, some damage to any potential or idealized free market has already been done so pricing+supply aberrations are thus more possible.) ANYHOW, gosh we've been around this corner before, the obvious suggestion at least for starters is some sort of sliding scale where one is rewarded, somewhat, for being parsimonious or at least matching their needs to their actual business activity. And conversely one is penalized, somewhat, for being unreasonable. Given the address architecture it's not entirely a no-brainer to design such a system. But it could look something like an exponential charge based on length of prefix (after all, it is an exponent), and I'd suggest some negative feedback for holding a lot of long prefixes (that is, hoarding the cheap ones.) Anyhow, it could evolve from there to a simple market kind of thing. -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | http://www.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD On March 14, 1996 at 10:51 perry@piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger) wrote:
"David R. Conrad" writes:
Your proposal is? If you say charging for address space, please explain what would stop deep pocket companies from buying up all the address space?
If you start charging for food, what would stop deep pocket companies from buying up all the food?
If you start charging rent for apartments, what would stop deep pocket companies from renting all the apartments?
Perry
-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | http://www.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, Michael Dillon wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, David R. Conrad wrote:
Bullshit. The InterNIC is very much aware of global routing issues.
Then why have they not yet come up with a workable policy like the one RIPE uses to release /16 blocks incrementally to new ISP's?
Well, currently InterNIC is the registry of last resort, and given RFC 1814 and such, they CANNOT, if you fight hard enough, turn you away. Given the number of new ISPs that come to them for provider independent addresses, they isn't enough IPv4 address space to do the above with. -dorian
On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, Dorian Kim wrote:
Then why have they not yet come up with a workable policy like the one RIPE uses to release /16 blocks incrementally to new ISP's?
Well, currently InterNIC is the registry of last resort, and given RFC 1814 and such, they CANNOT, if you fight hard enough, turn you away. Given the number of new ISPs that come to them for provider independent addresses, they isn't enough IPv4 address space to do the above with.
Are you sure of this? Even if they start allocating out of the former Class A space? After all, getting a reserved /16 out of the former Class A space wouldn't exactly be free because you would need to buy a NAT in order to avoid renumbering down the road so not *ALL* ISP's are going to demand one of these. And it doesn't hurt to publicize the existence of NAT technology either, because if ISP's know that NAT's exist they are more likely to deploy them at customer sites along with RFC1918 addresses. BTW, that puddle on the floor is from the egg dripping off of my face. I'll be more RIGOUROUS next time at readin the whois output. Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
Given the number of new ISPs that come to them for provider independent addresses, they isn't enough IPv4 address space to do the above with. Are you sure of this? Even if they start allocating out of the former Class A space?
Do the math. Currently, about 50 new ISP approach InterNIC for address space per week. This is up from about 25 6 months ago, so the growth rate currently quadruples over a year. Assuming a constant rate, however, you'd consume all remaining address space in about 8 years. This does not include large ISPs like Sprint, MCI, etc. that are allocated /13s and /14s when they need new blocks, nor does it include the growth from the AP or European regions. Oh yea, don't forget the effects of the rush on address space you'd likely get when people realize the address space is running out very quickly.
After all, getting a reserved /16 out of the former Class A space wouldn't exactly be free because you would need to buy a NAT in order to avoid renumbering down the road so not *ALL* ISP's are going to demand one of these.
I don't see the point. If you are going to propose using a reserved class A, why not use net 10? Regards, -drc
On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, David R. Conrad wrote:
I don't see the point. If you are going to propose using a reserved class A, why not use net 10?
The /16 would be reserved but not actually used. Then after a probationary period if the ISP shows that they deserve the /16, then they get to use it. If not, they lose it and have to continue running their NAT indefinitely. The /16's are reserved out of the old Class A space and nobody is 100% sure that those addresses can be safely sliced and diced into longer prefixes than /8. But this proposal ensures that when a /16 is released, the ISP already has a NAT system in place and if we find out that terrible things happen, they can just hook their NAT back up. If it turns out that the old Class A is simply not globally usable, we can still allocate it to companies to use behind a NAT so that only the ISP's and NSP's need to deal with the mess on the global side. Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, Michael Dillon wrote:
Given the number of new ISPs that come to them for provider independent addresses, they isn't enough IPv4 address space to do the above with.
Are you sure of this? Even if they start allocating out of the former Class A space?
After all, getting a reserved /16 out of the former Class A space wouldn't exactly be free because you would need to buy a NAT in order to avoid renumbering down the road so not *ALL* ISP's are going to demand one of these. And it doesn't hurt to publicize the existence of NAT technology either, because if ISP's know that NAT's exist they are more likely to deploy them at customer sites along with RFC1918 addresses.
But that's not what you said. Given that Internic gets about 50-60 address requests a week, if you reserve /16 for each, you can do the math. I guess this would force the deployment of IPv6 much sooner than currently projected. -dorian
On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, Dorian Kim wrote:
On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, Michael Dillon wrote:
Are you sure of this? Even if they start allocating out of the former Class A space?
But that's not what you said. Given that Internic gets about 50-60 address requests a week, if you reserve /16 for each, you can do the math.
Math? What does math have to do with it? *grin* Oh well, I guess there's some math there but I find it hard to believe that out of 50 address requests per week from ISP's there are more than 10 that are truly clueful ISP's that absolutely need a /16 one year down the road. There are still a *LOT* of people that think the Internic hands out portable addresses and startup ISP's are not much different from the general population in that regard. Besides, the process of applying for an IP block is a lot like a negotiation. The newbie ISP presents their case as to why they know they will be mega-ISP Inc. a year down the road and absolutely must have that /16 block from the Internic. Then the Internic can counter and ask why they can't just use RFC 1918 addresses and run a NAT on their gateway. The ISP can plead poverty that they cannot afford to buy a PIX from Cisco and then the Internic can point out that a poverty-stricken ISP isn't likely to need a /16 and counter with a /23. And so on ........
I guess this would force the deployment of IPv6 much sooner than currently projected.
It is by no means certain that IPv6 will ever be deployed. There are lots of ways to wring new life out of IPv4. Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com> writes: Then why have they not yet come up with a workable policy like the one RIPE uses to release /16 blocks incrementally to new ISP's?
The RIPE NCC is not doing that. What we are doing is quite similar to what the InterNIC does with one very notable exception: We charge ISPs for registration service and we audit their assignments so they have to have their act together. This means there are significant resources involved in obtaining address space from us rather than their transit provider. This causes ISPs to make much more rational decisions about where to obtain their address space. It also makes the rate with which new local registries are established quite predictable which allows for some level of rationalisation in allocation decisions. Unfortunately the InterNIC is in no position to put ISPs before that choice. THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED! Details: We allocate a fixed size first allocation (currently /19s) to each and every newly established local registry (ISP) *no matter what their glorious plans are*. Further allocations are made *exlusivcely* based on past usage rates which is reasonably rational. Remember that we audit assignments. We will do our best to place subsequent allocations such that they can be aggregated with previous ones. We are reasonably successful at this and that is probably why the misunderstanding above is quite common. Formally however we make no guarantee whatsoever about the placement of allocations. This gives us the possibility to react flexibly and do the right thing most of the time. Again, this is essentially the same policy as the InterNIC uses with a few local variations. The main difference is that ISPs have to expend resources to get service. Daniel
bash$ whois 65 Air Force Logistics Command (ASN-LOGNET) LOGNET-AS 65 IANA (RESERVED-7) Reserved 64.0.0.0 - 95.0.0.0
bash$ whois 96 Army Finance and Accounting Office (ASN-JTELS) JTELS-BEN1-AS 96 IANA (RESERVED-8) Reserved 96.0.0.0 - 126.0.0.0
How did these guys get such big chunks of address space reserved?
I think someone is jumping to conculsions here. ASN-LOGNET is a reservered autonmus system number, and IP blocks 64.0.0.0 - 95.0.0.0 are servered by IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, which has delegate address space to Internet, APNIC, and RIPE). The question of who has authority to assign golbally unique IP adddrress is a good one, and the only historical directives would indicate, US DOD -> Internet Society -> IANA -> Internic or some such. The questions regarding allocation and assignment, should be addressed in other forums and perhaps, the question should be asked of the users of the Internet, are you unhappy with the current allocation methods/agencies, and what action would be recommened to fix these problems, i.e. replace Internic, etc. It only seems to demostraight that the current system works reasonably well for the majority of users, that someone hasn't come up with a end user referendum to replace the allocation agencies. -- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-339-6094 http://www.fc.net
On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, Michael Dillon wrote: [give ISP's blocks out of 65/8, 96/8?]
Of course, there is one little problem with this....
bash$ whois 65 Air Force Logistics Command (ASN-LOGNET) LOGNET-AS 65 IANA (RESERVED-7) Reserved 64.0.0.0 - 95.0.0.0
bash$ whois 96 Army Finance and Accounting Office (ASN-JTELS) JTELS-BEN1-AS 96 IANA (RESERVED-8) Reserved 96.0.0.0 - 126.0.0.0
How did these guys get such big chunks of address space reserved?
IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. The address space is theirs to delegate in the first place. 64/8-126/8 is old Class-A space that is "reserved indefinitely" according to RFC1466 (May '93). // Matt Zimmerman Chief of System Management NetRail, Inc. // mdz@netrail.net sales@netrail.net // (703) 524-4800 [voice] (703) 524-4802 [data] (703) 534-5033 [fax]
On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, Michael Dillon wrote:
bash$ whois 65 Air Force Logistics Command (ASN-LOGNET) LOGNET-AS 65 IANA (RESERVED-7) Reserved 64.0.0.0 - 95.0.0.0
bash$ whois 96 Army Finance and Accounting Office (ASN-JTELS) JTELS-BEN1-AS 96 IANA (RESERVED-8) Reserved 96.0.0.0 - 126.0.0.0
Look one more time, AS65 is reserved for Air Force and AS96 for the Army, the blocks are reserved for the IANA. Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Your Gateway to the World! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc. Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5 Email sales@netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Access: (703) 524-4802 guest --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
:> :>bash$ whois 65 :>Air Force Logistics Command (ASN-LOGNET) LOGNET-AS 65 :>IANA (RESERVED-7) Reserved 64.0.0.0 - 95.0.0.0 :> :>bash$ whois 96 :>Army Finance and Accounting Office (ASN-JTELS) JTELS-BEN1-AS 96 :>IANA (RESERVED-8) Reserved 96.0.0.0 - 126.0.0.0 :> Michael, I think you misread the output from whois. When you do a 'whois 96' you're kicking up 2 different records. From the below excerpts I see absolutely no relation between the IP block 96.0.0.0 - 126.0.0.0, and the current user of AS# 96. matt:portia: whois 96.0 IANA (RESERVED-8) Netname: Reserved Netblock: 96.0.0.0 - 126.0.0.0 Coordinator: Reynolds, Joyce K. (JKR1) JKRey@ISI.EDU (310) 822-1511 Record last updated on 03-Apr-92. The InterNIC Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet Information (Networks, ASN's, Domains, and POC's). Please use the whois server at nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information. matt:portia: whois asn-jtels Army Finance and Accounting Office (ASN-JTELS) "Fort Ben Harrison Indianapolis, IN 46249-1136 " Autonomous System Name: JTELS-BEN1-AS Autonomous System Number: 96 Coordinator: Reilly, William (RR26) REILLY@INDPLS-ASAFM1.ARMY.MIL (COM) (317)543-7179 (DSN) 699-7179 Record last updated on 10-Jan-91. The InterNIC Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet Information (Networks, ASN's, Domains, and POC's). Please use the whois server at nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information. As far as those 'reserved' former A addresses. Aren't those the ones that are going to be cut up and handed out in the not so distant future? Matt
participants (12)
-
Barry Shein -
Daniel Karrenberg -
David R. Conrad -
Dorian Kim -
Jeremy Porter -
Jim Browning -
Matt Zimmerman -
Matthew James Marnell -
Michael Dillon -
Nathan Stratton -
nelson＠crynwr.com -
Perry E. Metzger