Wasted space

Jeremy Porter jerry at freeside.fc.net
Fri Apr 30 05:13:54 UTC 1999


In message <199904300031.UAA06965 at ussenterprise.ufp.org>, Leo Bicknell writes:
>
>In a previous e-mail, Austin Schutz said:
>> 	While importing netblock data I discovered what must be common
>> knowledge for most. A large portion of allocated space is not being announce
>d.
>> Equally exciting was the discovery that a large portion of space is
>> maintainer-free, thus making it essentially impossible to have an exact
>> accounting of who has what.
>
>	Who said you had to make your netblock visable to whatever
>definition of "announced" you have to make it valid, and in use?
>
>	Just because it doesn't show up on your favorite looking glass
>doesn't mean no one is using it, or has a legitimate need for it.

The definition of legitimate and need are both highly
subjective.  RFC 2050 states:
 In order for the Internet to scale using existing technologies, use
   of regional registry services should be limited to the assignment of
   IP addresses for organizations meeting one or more of the following
   conditions:

      a)  the organization has no intention of connecting to
          the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still
          requires a globally unique IP address.  The organization
          should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918.
          If it is determined this is not possible, they can be
          issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses.

      b)  the organization is multi-homed with no favored connection.

      c)  the organization's actual requirement for IP space is
          very large, for example, the network prefix required to
          cover the request is of length /18 or shorter.
   All other requestors should contact its ISP for address space or
   utilize the addresses reserved for non-connected networks described
   in RFC1918 until an Internet connection is established.  Note that
   addresses issued directly from the IRs,(non-provider based), are the
   least likely to be routable across the Internet.

Current registry policy indicates that it is NOT acceptable for organizations
to request space that they do not plan to be routeable on the Internet.
There is legacy space that has been issued under different policies and
those policies are being review by the registries to see if/when/under what
conidtions, those assingments would be revoked.  I personally don't see
much changing very soon but in 5 or 10 years who can say?

If it is not publicly routeable then it is not in use on the public
Internet.  The regional registries are not in the business of managing
private corporations "Intranets".  So the issue of mergers is addressed.
Renumbering is already a fact of life, so that isn't a reason.

>From my recollection of studies done in 1996 the fast majority of
space had a maintainer although there were some records from companies with
incorrect contact information due to mergers and bankrupcies, etc.
Out of the 400,000-500,000 entires I be curious to find out which
ones and what percentage did not have maintainers.


--- jerry at fc.net
Insync Internet, Inc.          | Freeside Communications, Inc.
5555 San Felipe, Suite 700     | PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708
713-407-7000                   | 512-458-9810 
http://www.insync.net          | http://www.fc.net




More information about the NANOG mailing list