Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

David Miller <david@dirigo.mint.net> Sun, 04 February 1996 13:40 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08463; 4 Feb 96 8:40 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08459; 4 Feb 96 8:40 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05552; 4 Feb 96 8:40 EST
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08452; 4 Feb 96 8:40 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08448; 4 Feb 96 8:40 EST
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05547; 4 Feb 96 8:40 EST
Received: from dirigo.mint.net by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-22) id <AA17367>; Sun, 4 Feb 1996 05:40:11 -0800
Received: (from david@localhost) by dirigo.mint.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) id IAA04984; Sun, 4 Feb 1996 08:37:18 -0500
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 08:37:18 -0500
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: David Miller <david@dirigo.mint.net>
To: Hank Nussbacher <HANK@taunivm.tau.ac.il>
Cc: Howard Berkowitz <hcb@clark.net>, Jon Zeeff <jon@branch.com>, bmanning@isi.edu, curtis@ans.net, jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu, G.Huston@aarnet.edu.au, asp@uunet.uu.net, cidrd@iepg.org, iesg@isi.edu, local-ir@ripe.net, nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
In-Reply-To: <199602040608.BAA03311@dirigo.mint.net>
Message-Id: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960204083438.4979A-100000@dirigo.mint.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"

On Sun, 4 Feb 1996, Hank Nussbacher wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:29:09 -0500 (EST) you said:
> >
> >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.

While that certainly sounds nice from the current context, there are 
other reasons for wanting unique address space.  Things like mergers come 
to mind, as well as the expectation of better security in ipv6.

--- David Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
		It's *amazing* what one can accomplish when 
		    one doesn't know what one can't do!