Re: Internic address allocation policy

[ATM_Feel_the_Power <joe () net99 net>]

YES.

Setting up the SWIP and some other requirements might be expected but, as 
providers I think the line needs to be drawn somewhere. I mean there is a 
difference between the smaller isp and a network thats got millions of 
dollars invested. I know that other major nets have had problems as well. 
This problem just needs to go away.

Joseph Stroup

On Fri, 17 Mar 1995, Paul Lustgraaf wrote:

> Does anyone but me agree that the Internic's current address allocation
> policy is counter-productive?  I've been trying for three weeks now to get
> a block of addresses assigned to me for re-assignment to my customers.
> I run the non-profit Internet in the whole state of Iowa and the Internic
> asks me to tell them *ahead of time* how many hosts there will be and
> the subnet and masking policy for this block.
>
> How the H***  am I supposed to know that?
>
> Since I sent in this request, I have had *legitimate* requests for over
> 40 class C-sized blocks.  If I have to go to my regional providers block
> to satisfy them, it will just contribute to the global routing table
> explosion.
>
> My regional provider, Midnet, tells me that to get the last CIDR block,
> they had to put in over 16 man-hours convincing the Internic that their
> request was valid.  This is from a Regional that serves 7 states!
>
> Is this crazy, or what?
>
> Now, what do we do about it?
>
> Paul Lustgraaf              "Its easier to apologize than to get permission."
> Network Specialist                                      Grace Hopper
> Iowa State University Computation Center                    grpjl () iastate edu
> Ames, IA  50011                                                  515-294-0324