From: David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc@apnic.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 1996 6:50 PM
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?
The answer is to have published, objective criteria, consistently applied, with a defined appeal process and accountability. It's hard to play by the rules if you don't know what they are, and one has only to look at the /14 allocation to @Home to realize that the "slow start" rules do not apply to everyone equally. -- Jim Browning <jfbb@ATMnet.net>
Hi,
The answer is to have published, objective criteria, consistently applied, with a defined appeal process and accountability.
See the latest allocation policy draft -- it attempts to do that. Comments on the draft would be welcome, see: draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-00.txt
It's hard to play by the rules if you don't know what they are, and one has only to look at the /14 allocation to @Home to realize that the "slow start" rules do not apply to everyone equally.
The @Home allocation was done outside of normal registry procedures by the IANA directly. InterNIC should not be held responsible for that case. Regards, -drc
participants (2)
-
David R. Conrad -
Jim Browning