Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know it's in the interests of IBM, MCI,& AT&T to put small
> companies out of business, but is it in the interests of the RIRs?
> If not, why don't you work things out so that freedom and free
> enterprise can continue to flourish on the Internet, instead of
> being replaced by the present rampant trend to centralization and
> big business/monopolies?
There's just one more point I'd like to make about IP allocations,
as they relate to large ISPs and network providers. Some of these
allocations are legacy allocations, ie., granted during the time that
the Internet was a research project. For example, the allocation
for AT&T (12/8) dates back to October 1983 (reference: RFC 870,
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc870.txt). AT&T was fortunate enough
to realize the financial value of their allocation when the Internet
was opened to commercial traffic.
I think it's fair to be concerned about the implications of provider-based
addressing on those who can't get a large allocation and are forced to
take whatever they can get from a large provider. The movement to return
unused IP addresses is still ongoing; Stanford University, for example,
is in the process of returning its legacy block (36/8) to IANA. If you
feel strongly that some of the commercial providers who got legacy /8s
ought to return some of those addresses, perhaps a constructive way of
going about it is to gather the ISPs you feel are being squeezed, and
have them file a formal complaint with the NTIA. However, be prepared
to hear from the NTIA that those allocations were designated for commercial
use. (In the RFC, you can see those allocations are marked with a 'C'
that specifies commercial use.) If it goes to the US Supreme Court, even
they might choose to honor that distinction.
--gregbo
gds at best.com
