Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

[David Miller <[e-mail]>]

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?

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!