- To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Brian Kantor)
- Subject: Re: RFC1597
- From: Geert Jan de Groot <GeertJan.deGroot@ripe.net>
- Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 01:35:20 +0100
- Cc: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Dec 1994 09:23:19 PST." <199412011723.JAA04676@nothing.ucsd.edu>
- Sender: GeertJan.deGroot@ripe.net
On Thu, 1 Dec 1994 09:23:19 -0800 Brian Kantor wrote:
> I don't believe that returning network 44 or any bits of it would be a
> good idea. We already occupy almost half a class-B network in hosts
> alone, and with subnetting and tunnelling for connectivity, we're really
> better off using up a single class-A network.
That would mean 32000 hosts out of a possible 17000000, or 0.18% utilisation.
In other words, nearly the address space of two class C networks for
each host defined.
The assignment was done in different times, when address space shortage
was much less of an issue. We were lucky, and I think it's wise
to realize that
I have received at least 2 queries for 'own' address space.
Unless one needs address space to connect to an Internet Service Provider,
please don't ask for more. We don't need it. If you feel you have
convincing technical motivations, I'd like to hear about them,
but don't apply for address space just for the heck of it
There is be more than enough address space left in net 126.96.36.199/8
> I have occasionally heard the suggestion that we should have instead
> gotten a number of Class-B or Class-C networks. I think that is a
> short-sighted view, as it trades the possibility of an independent
> radio-based IP network for immediate connectivity over commercial
> internet providers.
True, though the whole idea of class-A-B-C is fading out. Think about
CIDR, where one works with a network prefix and a host suffix, which
both have variable length. I.e. 188.8.131.52/30 is a 30-bit
network prefix, and a 2-bit suffix (i.e. for 4 IP addresses).
This should not sound strange to people who were introduced into
TCP/IP using Phil's package as this package has been classless
from the past (good foresight, phil!)
Most of the Internet world speaks CIDR these days, so it should
be OK to announce a subnet of net 44 now. Anybody interested in
an experiment or two?
> I think Hank made the right decision at the right time, and we now have
> something to work with that we could NOT get now, no matter how well it
> would serve our purposes. I think we should hang on to it.
... and use it wisely then!
> As for legal restrictions on who can send what where over radio, perhaps
> it's time to start working on getting those regulations changed. It has
> been done in the USA, although not enough in my opinion. I wonder if it
> can be achieved elsewhere? I would hope so.
With telecomm restrictions in Europe, where people scream murder
when a monopoly is lifted, this will take quite some time.
There's much work here. Why is it so difficult to get a temporary
USA guest license for me, and vice versa?
It will take many years before this will be changed. IPv4 might
be dead and buried by that time. Until then, someone that assumes
that every packet that comes from 44.x.x.x will fully comply to
his license, plays dangerous games with his license.
73 Geert Jan PE1HZG
- Re: RFC1597
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Brian Kantor)