Ignoring for a minute that I don't work with local-ir stuff in any
way or capacity, I find it odd the lengths ``we'' (Internet NICs,
registries, providers) go to, to help and support people and
organisations who don't want to play our game, ie connect to the
global Internet, anyway. This is even more so, given the address
space depletion (although opinions wrt this problem varies).
Individuals or micro companies who want to connect a couple of PCs
on a LAN can renumber the day they connect.
Larger companies who clearly state that they have no intention of
connecting, and want numbers for closed networks, don't need unique
numbers (this has been discussed elsewhere recently).
Medium size companies who intend to connect (later) -- no problem, of
course they can get official numbers.
But is it completely outrageous to consider unique/official IP
numbers to be the property of the global, connected Internet? And
categorically rule that they will only be issued to members of this
crowd, ie those that actually (intend to) connect?
"Intend to connect" ... A sledgehammer approach (nothing new in this,
but I think it bears repeating): Organisations get allocations as
usual, with the usual justifications for size etc. If somebody don't
use (ie connect and route) at least part of their allocation within,
say, 12 months, they have forfeited their chance. Their numbers may
be re-assigned to somebody else, who now has first call. If the
original requestor wants to connect at a later stage, they'll have to
renumber.
Considering the "interesting" future ahead of us, when IP numbers
become really scarce, I don't see any reason to dole them out
right, left and center to people who don't intend to use them.
Unless we want to start building the future market of IP numbers;
I wonder what a /16 will sell for around the turn of the century.
--
bilse <bilse(a)EU.net> +31 20 592 5109 (dir: 5110); fax +31 20 592 5163
``We used to ! but now we @'' (jensen)
