nanog mailing list archives

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations


From: bmanning () ISI EDU (Bill Manning)
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 14:29:21 -0800 (PST)


Another factoid to consider - I know of a company that has a Class C that
they don't use.  To my knowledge, nobody has ever even asked that
they give it up.  Some automated email process could do this without
much effort.

    Well, almost.  The IPGR robot is, in fact, doing just that.

Based on never having received such an email and knowing of
several others who haven't either, I disagree.


        "All in good time my pretty..."
        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
                25% - in use & unwilling to renumber
                15% - willing to renumber or return 

        This is from ~6,000 delegated entries.  If all goes well,
        we can find some new area to work on sometime in later this 
        year.

        Have any suggestions?  198.x.x.x?  The old /16 space?

--bill


Current thread: