Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: 206.82.160.0/22
From: Robert Elz <kre () munnari OZ AU>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 09:59:24 +1000

    Date:        Tue, 26 Sep 95 15:50:30 -0400
    From:        jnc () ginger lcs mit edu (Noel Chiappa)
    Message-ID:  <9509261950.AA04633 () ginger lcs mit edu>

    From: David Conrad <davidc () apnic net>
    >>  The category is self-determined by the organization.
    
    Everyone's going to classify themselves as the smallest, then...

Not necessarily, this may actually be quite clever.   Apart
from gih's vanity, which will tend to cause isp's to push
themselves into bigger classes, and jnc's $s, which will tend
to push them to smaller ones, there's also the issue of addr
allocations - an isp that claims to be "small" can hardly then
claim to need a /8 or even /16 or something, now can they?
That should mean, that in practice, an ISP can't claim to
be smaller than they are and still have available addresses for
new clients.   Particlarly vane ISP's may still pay the higher
amounts, but as no statement has been made that connects the
size of the ISP to addr space allocations, there is no
obligation to give small ISP's with big egos lots of addresses.
Whoever (at RIPE I assume) dreamed up this scheme did a good job.

kre



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]