You are NOT "all wet"...your exact conclusions have been reached by others...but the policies do not change... Keep in mind that you are talking about policies which have not been set by a large number of people, or a democratic process... IANA is run by one person, Jon Postel...he is copied here also check out http://www.netsol.com for more information... The Internet (and Internic) have been transformed during the past 12 months into a "big money" game...IP addressess are now very valuable..."routable" IP addresses are even more valuable..."routability" is determined by the ISPs...unfortunately the ISPs use a small percentage of the IP addresses and have very little to say about how they are allocated... Jim Fleming Naperville, IL @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ---------- From: Jim Browning[SMTP:jfbb@atmnet.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 1996 4:06 PM To: 'com-priv list'; 'NANOG List'; 'NIC Registry list' Subject: Allocation of IP Addresses I may be opening a can of worms, and if so, I believe it is one which needs to be opened. If this topic has been beaten to death in the past, then I apologize, however as it is a rapidly evolving topic, it warrants repeated discussion and evaluation. My fundamental questions are: 1. Is InterNIC consistently applying objective criteria in its evaluation of requests for the allocation of IP address blocks? 2. If so, what are the criteria? The INTERNIC IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES FOR INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS states that "allocation is based on the ISP's 3 - 6 month requirement and other information the InterNIC deems necessary". There is no detail provided (in any document I have found) of what other information InterNIC deems to be necessary. I find an apparent conflict between established policy and its actual implementation on a day-to-day basis. CIDR dictates that addresses should be aggregated into the largest blocks possible, and that the publishing of extraneous routes be eliminated. In keeping with this, and because of often discussed operational considerations, the minimum size of blocks routed at the NAPs is growing larger and larger. To ease participation at the national level, you must ensure to the fullest extent possible that your address space is routable as a single block. In order to accomplish this, you must obtain either: A. a single allocation capable of supporting planned growth, or B. incremental allocations of *contiguous* blocks InterNIC's current CIDR allocation practice does not support either of these options. Due to the shortage of *available* IP addresses (there are of course millions of allocated but unused addresses floating around), InterNIC is using a "slow start" approach which provides incremental increases in total address space, with no guarantee that future increments will be contiguous. This means that the only way to maintain efficient routing is to engage in repeated renumbering of customer addresses to consolidate into increasingly larger blocks. How many times is it reasonable to ask a customer to renumber? Once is certainly reasonable. Twice is questionable. More than that and I would suspect the customer would renumber all right, but as part of shifting to a different ISP. The day to day implementation of policy by the InterNIC has increasingly critical impact on our industry, to the point of controlling who has the opportunity to succeed and who does not. IMHO, it is imperative that: 1. this function be performed in an understandable manner, 2. objective criteria be consistently applied 3. the criteria in use be publicly available, and 4. there be defined mechanisms for the 'appeal' of decisions made in the processing of allocation requests. Recent experience and observation leads me to conclude that these imperatives are perhaps not being met. Am I all wet???? -- Jim Browning <jfbb@ATMnet.net> 619/812-2860 Fax 619/812-2867