Re: Internic address allocation policy
Original message <199611191527.KAA14083@jazz.internic.net> From: Kim Hubbard <kimh@internic.net> Date: Nov 19, 10:27 Subject: Re: Internic address allocation policy
Matthew,
The InterNIC bases additional allocation blocks on efficient utilization. We can only see the utilization from your SWIPs and RWHOIS info. If you refuse to supply contact information on your assignments, how can we tell what your utilization is?
And as for the routing table overload, although the initial allocation may be relatively small, it is almost always reserved from a larger block.
Bottom line, to receive additional address space all you have to do is the same thing everyone else does - submit reassignment information. You don't have to fly out here, you don't have to be nice to me, just follow the basic policies.
Regards,
Kim Hubbard InterNIC Registry
If you review the email exchanged between myself and netreg@internic.net you'll find that several other "requirements" have been put out there for me to meet. It isn't just "all you have to do is... submit reassignment information". Furthermore, my mailbox is filling with stories from people who submitted reassignment information and were then told "sorry, you conserved addresses so well that you didn't even use a /19 in 3 months, so you don't get any more addresses" THAT sure isn't "all you have to do is... submit reassignment information" My SWIP and RWHOIS data shows that over 90% of my address space is allocated and lists contact information. There are only about 16 class C's where I've listed "subnetted for large numbers of 'workgroup' accounts", which is something like 3% of my total addresses. This exceeds, by far, the number of allocated addresses that show up via rwhois and swip for address blocks held by other providers who are not having problems receiving addresses. Clearly the standards are not being applied equally, and the standards are preventing some people from engaging in this business. -matthew kaufman matthew@scruz.net
Matthew, I do not think it's a good idea to get into the specifics regarding your request on this list. I will email you privately so we may continue this and hopefully work something out. Kim
Original message <199611191527.KAA14083@jazz.internic.net> From: Kim Hubbard <kimh@internic.net> Date: Nov 19, 10:27 Subject: Re: Internic address allocation policy
Matthew,
The InterNIC bases additional allocation blocks on efficient utilization. We can only see the utilization from your SWIPs and RWHOIS info. If you refuse to supply contact information on your assignments, how can we tell what your utilization is?
And as for the routing table overload, although the initial allocation may be relatively small, it is almost always reserved from a larger block.
Bottom line, to receive additional address space all you have to do is the same thing everyone else does - submit reassignment information. You don't have to fly out here, you don't have to be nice to me, just follow the basic policies.
Regards,
Kim Hubbard InterNIC Registry
If you review the email exchanged between myself and netreg@internic.net you'll find that several other "requirements" have been put out there for me to meet. It isn't just "all you have to do is... submit reassignment information".
Furthermore, my mailbox is filling with stories from people who submitted reassignment information and were then told "sorry, you conserved addresses so well that you didn't even use a /19 in 3 months, so you don't get any more addresses" THAT sure isn't "all you have to do is... submit reassignment information"
My SWIP and RWHOIS data shows that over 90% of my address space is allocated and lists contact information. There are only about 16 class C's where I've listed "subnetted for large numbers of 'workgroup' accounts", which is something like 3% of my total addresses. This exceeds, by far, the number of allocated addresses that show up via rwhois and swip for address blocks held by other providers who are not having problems receiving addresses.
Clearly the standards are not being applied equally, and the standards are preventing some people from engaging in this business.
-matthew kaufman matthew@scruz.net
participants (2)
-
Kim Hubbard -
matthew＠scruz.net