Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

[Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:29:09 -0500 (EST) you said:
>On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> > > 	We are working on the 192.x.x.x swamp right now.
>> > > 	Rough estimates (with much more accurate data @ NANOG)
>> > >
>> > > 		60% - invalid or missing contact information
>> >
>> > This is interesting.  How about a policy that says if nobody can contact
>you
>> > and none of your addresses are reachable, then after some period, your
>> > addresses get recycled.
>> >
>> >
>> By addresses not being reachable, are you effectively saying that any
>> enterprise that does not want to connect to the Internet must use
>> RFC1597 address space?
>>
>> Anyone have an idea how much of the address space is used for
>> registered addresses of organizations that do not connect to the Internet?
>
>I would also be curious how the 60% missing is counted.
>
>If an organization places 99% of their addresses behind a firewall do all
>those not count?

If you have a class B and use a firewall, then a /27 should be more
than is needed on the global Internet and they should use an address
from RFC1597 internally and return the /16.

>
>Unfortunately, I don't think we can base much policy on whether or what %
>of addresses are reachable from the internet.
>
>--- David Miller
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>		It's *amazing* what one can accomplish when
>		    one doesn't know what one can't do!
>

Hank