Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
On Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:29:09 -0500 (EST) you said:
On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Howard Berkowitz wrote:
We are working on the 192.x.x.x swamp right now. Rough estimates (with much more accurate data @ NANOG)
60% - invalid or missing contact information
This is interesting. How about a policy that says if nobody can contact you and none of your addresses are reachable, then after some period, your addresses get recycled.
By addresses not being reachable, are you effectively saying that any enterprise that does not want to connect to the Internet must use RFC1597 address space?
Anyone have an idea how much of the address space is used for registered addresses of organizations that do not connect to the Internet?
I would also be curious how the 60% missing is counted.
If an organization places 99% of their addresses behind a firewall do all those not count?
If you have a class B and use a firewall, then a /27 should be more than is needed on the global Internet and they should use an address from RFC1597 internally and return the /16.
Unfortunately, I don't think we can base much policy on whether or what % of addresses are reachable from the internet.
--- David Miller ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's *amazing* what one can accomplish when one doesn't know what one can't do!
Hank
If you have a class B and use a firewall, then a /27 should be more than is needed on the global Internet and they should use an address from RFC1597 internally and return the /16.
Hank
Hank, Depending on the firewall design, hosts located behind firewalls can conceivably access the Internet directly for certain services and in this case unique addresses are required. Your assumption would be valid when all traffic for that site is handled by proxy servers. -- T. C. Hu | tchu@sandia.gov Sandia National Laboratories | Tel: (505) 845-8936 P.O.Box 5800 | FAX: (505) 844-2067 Albuquerque, NM 87111-0807 |
participants (2)
-
Hank Nussbacher -
Tan Chang Hu