"Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers

Fri Feb 11 03:15:35 UTC 2011

On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:54 PM, Jack Bates wrote:

> When there are X /8 networks reserved by the USG, it seems extremely wasteful to reserve from what little space we have a large block dedicated to LSN when the USG can give assurances that
> 
> 1) We won't route this, so use it
> 
> 2) We won't be giving it back or allocating it to someone else where it might be routed.
> 
> All proposals concerning reserving a /8 of unallocated space for LSN purposes was seen as obscene, and many proposals compromised with a /10, which some feel is too small. I don't think it would hurt for someone with appropriate connections to ask the USG on the matter. It is, after all, in the USG's interest and doesn't conflict with their current practices. Many don't consider it a concern (shown by wide use of DoD space already deployed), yet some do apparently have concern since there has been multiple requests for a new allocation for LSN purposes (in the IETF and in RIRs).

Indeed, that does sound simple. Obtaining such a commitment may prove to be 
a little more difficult, since it permanently encumbers use of one or more 
address blocks.  I am happy to ask, however, if there is a strong level of 
support to do so.  Alternatively, there is valid contact information listed 
in WHOIS for US DOD and other commercial /8 address block holders if you 
wish to ask one directly.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

p.s. Considering that we've collectively allocated the 95%+ of the address 
     space which was made available outside of DoD's original blocks, and 
     the DoD additionally returned 2 more /8's for the community (noted here: 
      <http://blog.icann.org/2008/02/recovering-ipv4-address-space/>), they 
     may actually have a different perspective us coming back to impair some
     of the remaining space they still hold.  I'm happy to discuss it, but 
     wanted to point out the long history and potential different perspective.