On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 04:31:40PM -0800, David Morris wrote: > > So I got curious and checked the 'current' list. Looks to me like the > question revolving around MIT is small potatoes compared with some > other organizations ... HP now owns two /8 blocks ... their own and DECs. HP is down a total of four /8's from the early days. Including the /8 they picked up from DEC. > A bunch of IANA reserved ... which seem likely to be available. One would expect the IANA reserved blocks (that are actually useful) will be handed to the RIRs as per current policy. > I'd bet more than 3/4ths of the space allocated to specific organizations > as /8s could be recovered. If that needs to happen, the sooner the current > owners of those blocks start planning, the easier it will be. been there, done that. times and circumstances change and recovery these days is likely an exercise is futility. the -LARGEST- assumption that most folks make is that if they can't see a prefix in their tiny, constrained view of the Internet's routing system (e.g. a subset of the commodity users of IP) that said prefix is fair game for recovery - to be re-assigned to folks that they can see through their routing porthole. That assumption has always proven false ... > > Those who speculated that MIT had a fundraising opportunity neglected > to comment on the competition. > > Dave Morris > > > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 michael.dillon@xxxxxx wrote: > > >... > > So to answer your question about what is stopping the RIRs from > > reclaiming the very earliest /8 allocations, it isn't yet worth the > > bother. Some of them have been returned voluntarily as you can see if > > you compare http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space with RFC > > 739. > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf