[address-policy-wg] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-1918bis-00.txt

Well, my request was for the NCC, which has the time and the mission to 
follow this stuff closely, to ask the author for clarification (rather 
than make any assumptions) and then let us know

Joao

On 23 Apr, 2004, at 14:57, Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:29:00PM +0100, James A. T. Rice wrote:
>> We already have 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16, 169.254/16, 192.0.2/24. 
>> If
>> these 18 million IPs aren't enough for an enterprises internal usage, 
>> I'm
>> amazed.
>
> Full ACK.  Speaking as networking person, not as co-chair.
>
> The approach is interesting.  "Since getting public address space means
> 'lots of work in making a proper address plan', we just grab 3 full 
> /8s".
>
> So how to proceed?  Is this an IETF working group (-backed) thing, or
> just a private draft?  Should there be a formal RIR response?  Is this
> RIR business, or ICANN/AC/ASO business?  I'm a bit confused about the
> politics here.
>
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
> -- 
> Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  60210  
> (58081)
>
> SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
> 80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299
>