Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
Paul A Vixie paul at vix.com
Fri Jan 26 13:00:48 CET 1996
While I'm still trying to puzzle out why a message sent to this particular list of exploders is different in any way from "spam," I'll jump in here: > [...] Sprint's policy is unchangable) any IP numbers allocated with a prefix > longer than /19 in 205 and /18 in 206 is essentially wasted space, which > is unusable, at least if you want connectivity with sprint? I've always assumed that Sprint's policy in this regard means that they do not want to have complete connectivity. Why, in this day and age, anyone in the transit business would not want to be able to resell 100% connectivity to their customers, I do not know. But it's Sprint's error and Sprint's problem. One assumes that after enough "unrouteable" (by Sprint and only Sprint) prefixes are allocated, Sprint will receive enough negative feedback from their customers that they (Sprint) will have to revise this foolish policy. Meanwhile let's not put the tail before the donkey -- this is Sprint's problem and the wound, good doctors, was self inflicted. How many times will you let the fact that Sprint is jumping in front of your car lead you to swerve to avoid hitting them? Heck, if that's what they want, do it and get it over with. Don't anybody change their routing or allocation policies just because Sprint has odd routing policies. Sprint != Internet. Fortunately.
[ lir-wg Archives ]