Todd Underwood was a little late

George Bonser gbonser at seven.com
Sun Jun 20 02:19:10 CDT 2010


I see 11.2/16 in my table.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: deleskie at gmail.com [mailto:deleskie at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 10:10 AM
> To: Michael Dillon; Lee Howard
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org; Todd Underwood
> Subject: Re: Todd Underwood was a little late
> 
> I just checked all those /8's none of them are in the table.
> 
> -jim
> Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Dillon <wavetossed at googlemail.com>
> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:39:07
> To: Lee Howard<lee at asgard.org>
> Cc: <nanog at nanog.org>; Todd Underwood<toddunder at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Todd Underwood was a little late
> 
> " "Registered but unrouted" would include space that is in use in large
> > private networks that aren't visible from your standard sources for
> > route views, such as U.S. DoD (6, 11, 22, 26, 28, 29, 30 /8) or U.K.
> > MoD (25/8).
> 
> Have you verified each of these address ranges or are you just a
> mindless
> robot repeating urban legends?
> 
> By your definition, there is an awful lot more "registered but
> unrouted" space
> and researchers have been reporting on this for 10 years or more. In
> order
> to correctly identify what you think you are talking about, you need to
> take
> into account the date a range was registered and the date that you
> scanned
> the data. If the difference between the two dates is less than some
> small
> number, say one year, then it is probably routed space which has not
> yet
> been routed but soon will be. Different people will want to set that
> breakpoint
> at different timescales for obvious reasons.
> 
> I encourage someone to do the work to list all such ranges along with
> the
> dates, and supply them as a feed, like Cymru does. Best would be to
> allow
> the feed recipient to filter based on age of block.
> 
> > I've heard that some organizations are growing beyond rfc1918 space
> 
> Many organizations have grown beyond RFC 1918 space. The first ones
> that
> made it known publicly were cable companies about 15 years ago.
> 
> And lets not forget that RFC 1597 and 1918 were relatively recent
> inventions.
> Before that, many organizations did "adopt" large chunks of class A
> space.
> One that I know of used everything from 1/8 to 8/8 and there were
> multiple
> disjoint instances of 1/8 in their many global networks. People have
> been
> building global networks with X.25 and frame relay transport layers for
> a lot longer than many realize. And the Internet did not become larger
> than these private networks until sometime in 1999 or so.
> 
> > and starting to use addresses like these already (for devices not
> capable
> > of IPv6) for internal networking (not publically routed).  I believe
> this
> > is generally considered bad citizenship, but I'm interested in why?
> 
> Stupidity. Many people have no historical perspective and think that
> the
> only users of I{P address space that matter are ISPs. I don't consider
> it
> bad citizenship if the "adopted" space is not routed publicly, and even
> the definition of "publicly" is hard to pin down. If someone wants to
> route
> such space to a 100 or so ASNs in Russia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan,
> Uzbekistan,
> Afghanistan and China, then I don't think that they are blatantly being
> bad Internet citizens. Particularly if they carefully chose whose
> addresses
> to "adopt".
> 
> > Is there a range most people camp on?
> 
> No. And it would be dumb to do that. Smarter is to use some range
> that nobody else is known to be camping on except the registrant
> and their network is geographically distant from yours.
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> 
> P.S. At this point, the IPv6 transition has failed, unlike the Y2K
> transition, and
> some level of crisis is unavoidable. In desperate times, people take
> desparate
> measures, and "adopting" IP address ranges that are not used by others
> in
> your locality seems a reasonable thing to do when economic survival is
> at
> stake.
> 
> P.P.S. I saw a report that someone, somewhere, had analysed some data
> which indicates that IP address allocation rates are increasing and
> there is
> a real possibility that we will runout by the end of this year, 2010.
> Does anyone
> know where I can find the actual analysis that led to this report?





More information about the NANOG mailing list