Re: NSP ... New Information

[Jeremy Porter <jerry () fc net>]

And besides, if it weren't for US governement interference, ARIN
would already be up and running, and the members could find solutions
for this problem.  But regardless, the allocation group does not
controll the policies of the individual companies, and therefore,
if you insist on causing grief for the rest of us, your best bet
to to file Anti-trust actions against carriers, like Sprint, Digex, 
and others that are filtering.  (hint, good luck, you will need it.)

If ISPs were to push their local federal congress people, and get
ARIN going, and join ARIN, perhaps this issue could be solved.
Besides if 192/8 was given out in /21's etc, large companies would
filter those addresses based on prefix length also.  (Assuming
enough were recycled.)  In the world of competative access there
are real costs assumed by those that want to interconnect,
in the eletric world, there is a substantial cost of equipment. 
In the CLEC/CAP world there are filings, build out requirements, etc
that are highly non-trivial.  In the IP world there is the cost of
renumbering until you can justify enough space.

Larry, if you want to discusse this issue at more length, I would
be happy to move it off-line to email or the TISPA list.  Nanog
is not interested in rehashing this issue again, anymore than
the discussion of the sale of intergers.

In message <m0wati8-0007zZC () rip psg com>, Randy Bush writes:
> > Should InterNIC grant small ISPs (this one serves a rural area between
> > Dallas and Oklahoma City) fully routable and portable IP space?
>
> You are talking about a scarce resource.  The InterNIC should allocate as
> much space as can be justified for real use.  We discussed this to death a
> long time ago.
>
> randy

---
Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc.      jerry () fc net
PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708  |  1-800-968-8750  |  512-458-9810
http://www.fc.net