I wonder if a finders fee could be setup by ARIN, ie 50% ofr the allocation :).. I personally know people that have /16, who either haven't routed them or are routing them but using 1-2 IPs... I think the angry mob approach is the best way to deal with the /8 & /16 squatters.. :). Mark -- Mark Segal Director, Data and Internet Planning Axxent Corp. Tel: (416)907-2858

-----Original Message----- From: Matt Levine [mailto:matt@deliver3.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 6:42 PM To: Kyle C. Bacon; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20

Netname: HALLIBURTON Netblock: 34.0.0.0 - 34.255.255.255

I have a hunch Halliburton oil doesn't need 16 million ips.. I also have a hunch that they wont be getting revoked anytime soon ;)

__ Matt Levine <matt@deliver3.com>

"I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realized who was telling me this." -- Emo Phillips

-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Kyle C. Bacon Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 6:21 PM To: mike harrison Cc: John K. Doyle, Jr.; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20

...

...

It seems a poor reasons for acquiring a company, as they really do not "own" the address space. --Mike--

That is an interesting comment, has anyone ever heard of ARIN revoking IP's from a entity who no longer meets current ARIN criteria for a give size allocation? Or is it infact the case that once you get the IP space as long as you keep paying for it you get to keep it? in essence you do "own" it as long as you keep the capitalist portion of ARIN happy and pay your annual IP bills? (no offense to those ARIN workforce members among us).

K

mike harrison <meuon@higher To: "John K. Doyle, Jr." <John.Doyle@oracle.com> tech.net> cc: nanog@merit.edu Sent by: Subject: Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 owner-nanog@m erit.edu

04/09/2001 06:07 PM

John said:

...

Well, you could acquire a company that already has one. :)

That has been the suggestion from several people. I've even considered it, especially when one of my local competitors has a /18, and they are much smaller than we are. We 'NAT' an incredible amount of dial-up and commercial customers to reduce our need for public IP's, and trends thankfully went to customers WANTING to be NAT'd and Proxied for 'firewall' reasons, with only a few public IP's.

It seems a poor reasons for acquiring a company, as they really do not "own" the address space. --Mike--