On Tuesday, November 19, 1996 10:42 PM, Ed Jackson[SMTP:ed_jackson@INS.COM] wrote: @ I would like to see more information on this item in particular -> is this @ being done currently -> or are plans underway to do so?... in regards to @ 'un-lending' that address space from those organizations to make them @ available for everyone else? @ @ now that would create some interesting discussions - ;) @ @ ed jackson @ @ At 04:03 PM 11/19/96 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote: @ > 7. A complete review of /8 allocations should be done @ > with a complete audit of how the companies @ > that have those allocations are utilizing those @ > blocks (as well as other blocks). The CEOs and @ > shareholders of those companies should be @ > informed that their past policies may not conform @ > to modern standards of frugal allocations. @ @ @ +--------------------------------------------------+ @ Ed Jackson @ International Network Services @ @ numeric pager: 1-888-352-4117 @ email pager: <mailto:page_ed_jackson@ins.com> @ +--------------------------------------------------+ @ @ I have suggested in the past a "neighbor net" approach. It is a simple approach in which people on each side of an allocation, be responsible for publishing a periodic usage report. They would obtain this information from their "neighboring" administrator. This approach can work for /24s, /16s and any size allocations, as long as one is aware of who their binary neighbor is in the IPv4 address space. To illustrate a /8 example, Hewlett Packard and Apple Computer would be responsible for the report on Digital Computer Corporation. Hewlett Packard - 15.0.0.0 Digital Computer - 16.0.0.0 Apple Computer - 17.0.0.0 MIT - 18.0.0.0 Digital would then be responsible for the report on Apple Computer along with MIT. A web site could easily be constructed with pointers to the various sites where the usage reports are stored. To help each person's "neighbor", the company would provide the base material for the report. The neighbors would act more as auditers, than reporters. @@@@@@@@@ Hewlett-Packard Company (NET-HP-INTERNET) 3000 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Netname: HP-INTERNET Netnumber: 15.0.0.0 Coordinator: Milligan, Michael J. (MM53) milli@HP.COM 1-415-424-3706 (FAX) 1-415-424-3632 Domain System inverse mapping provided by: HP.COM 15.255.152.4 HPCUOC.CUP.HP.COM 15.255.208.5 HPFCLA.FC.HP.COM 15.254.48.2 HPLB.HPL.HP.COM 15.255.59.2 RELAY.HP.COM 15.255.152.2 Record last updated on 16-Aug-95. @@@@@ Digital Equipment Corporation (NET-DEC-INTERNET) Netname: DEC-INTERNET Netnumber: 16.0.0.0 Coordinator: Reid, Brian K. (BKR) reid@PA.DEC.COM 415) 688-1307 Alternate Contact: Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC-NOC) noc@digital.com (415) 688-1380 (800) DIGITAL Domain System inverse mapping provided by: NS.DEC.COM 204.123.2.42 CRL.DEC.COM 192.58.206.2 Record last updated on 17-Oct-94. @@@@@ Apple Computer, Inc. (NET-APPLE-WWNET) 20740 Valley Green Drive, MS: 32-E Cupertino, CA 95014 Netname: APPLE-WWNET Netnumber: 17.0.0.0 Coordinator: Zimmerman, David Paul (DPZ) dpz@APPLE.COM +1 (408) 974-2436 (FAX) +1 (408) 974-3103 Alternate Contact: Tsuno, Eugene Y. (EYT) eugene@APPLE.COM (408) 974-4310 Domain System inverse mapping provided by: NSERVER.APPLE.COM 17.254.0.50 APPLE.COM 130.43.2.2 COLOSSUS.APPLE.COM 130.43.2.6 Record last updated on 15-Jan-96. @@@@@ Massachusetts Institute of Technology (NET-MIT-TEMP) 1 Amherst Street Cambridge, MA 02139-1986 Netname: MIT Netnumber: 18.0.0.0 Coordinator: Schiller, Jeffrey I (JIS) jis@MIT.EDU +1 617 253-8400 (FAX) +1 617 258-8736 Domain System inverse mapping provided by: STRAWB.MIT.EDU 18.71.0.151 W20NS.MIT.EDU 18.70.0.160 BITSY.MIT.EDU 18.72.0.3 Record last updated on 14-Jan-94. @@@@@ Some have challenged that this will not work because, get this, some neighbors are no longer using their IP addresses and would not respond to inquiries. I have suggested that this might be a good way to find these fragments of IP address space. Others have commented that they do not want anyone to know how they are allocating those 16 million addresses, and that it is proprietary information. Maybe that should be all that the "neighbor net" report says. As an example only, MIT could claim that they asked Apple and all they saw were No Trespassing signs. This could be reported to the CEO of Apple and the Shareholders. Apple could then decide what they want to present. At the present time, it appears that the CEOs of these companies and the leaders of these Universities do not have any idea that they have effectively homesteaded massive areas of Internet Land. The impression that their company is giving to the Internet community may be controlled by one or two "geeks" who have no authority to create that impression. In my opinion, the CEOs of those companies need to be contacted as part of a "neighbor net" plan. I have a feeling their PR departments will be interested, now that they have heard of the Internet. -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL e-mail: JimFleming@unety.net JimFleming@unety.net.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)