Re: Internic address allocation policy

[Kim Hubbard <kimh () internic net>]

>
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





> Original message <3.0.32.19961118224915.006f2b00 () nap net>
> From: "Chris A. Icide" <chris () nap net>
> Date: Nov 18, 22:49
> Subject: Re: Internic address allocation policy
> >
> ...
> > Imagine my amazement when I met Kim in person and found out she
> > didn't have fangs, horns, and a string with dried Network Engineers' ears
> > 'round her neck.  In fact, she is a very nice person doing a very difficult
> > job.  She has a set of rules she must live by.  she has to be impartial,
> > and show no preferences.  
>
> In fact, though, I have stories piling up via private email that shows
> that this "impartial and show no preferences" is in fact ignored on a
> fairly regular basis. 
>
> Thanks to everyone who has given me stuff via private email, and keep
> the stories coming in. 
>
> The allocation policies do in fact have fatal flaws. For instance,
> conservation of addresses which results in not filling an allocated block
> within 3 months is penalized, not rewarded. The penalty for using up
> addresses too slowly is to have future allocations blocked entirely,
> not simply limited to /19.
>
> You are better off allocating /24's quickly than carefully analyzing customer
> needs and allocating smaller subnets. However, wasting addresses too quickly
> can get your subnet-size policy brought into question.
>
> But, bigger providers are given much more slack with regard to their allocation 
> policies, and their own public SWIP and rwhois information bears this out. 
> There are dozens of examples of /24 subnets being handed out to people
> with very low numbers of actual hosts by Sprint, for instance, from their
> 207.40.0.0 block, and clearly they were able to receive their 208.0.0.0/12 
> block in spite of this. (I hate to pick on Sprint here, but that's the
> first set of data I pulled for examination).
>
> It goes on and on. 
>
> Yes, by bringing this out into the public I've potentially made someone(s)
> at the Internic unhappy. Sorry. I've also received dozens of private emails
> thanking me for making this more widely known, and several other providers
> have contacted me because they're in the same situation... comply with
> the policy, and get screwed.
>
> The fact is, I *don't* ever have to post stuff like this about my other
> "suppliers". For starters, I've never had a real supplier try to jerk me
> around so much, and secondly, there really aren't any other suppliers who
> are sole (monopolistic) sources.
>
> If Cisco's tech support people were as hard to deal with as the Internic
> representatives, I'd go buy someone else's routers. I don't have this
> choice for IP addresses, and my complaints are going to be public as long
> as there's people who want to hear them.
>
> -matthew kaufman
>  matthew () scruz net

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -