Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp

Stephen J. Wilcox steve at
Tue Apr 29 09:37:46 UTC 2003

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Jack Bates wrote:

> Kai Schlichting wrote:
> > An example covering this exact case: is such a space, owned by IBM.
> > 
> > Some illicit use documented at :
> > 
> >
> > , both from AS 3786 (, , since at
> > least 2002/12/26.
> > 
> > IBM confirmed the bogosity of these announcements on 04/07, the routes
> > got withdrawn on 04/14.
> Actually, IBM confirmed that any announcements from 9/8 were guaranteed 
> to be bogus. IBM uses 9/8 internally. They use NAT to convert 9/8 
> addresses back to routed addresses. One can imagine that IBM has a large 
> internal network globally with interconnects to various partners. Yet 
> many companies have found that utilization of NAT when communicating 
> with the public networks is a sound addition to security.

Further to my earlier post.. a large global private network requiring unique
space at many sites, they use 9/8 .. why not use 10/8 ??? (renumbering reasons
aside that is!) 

Recall the counter argument from Stephen Sprunk was that it needed a per site 
allocation from a registry, and yet these guys are managing just fine without 


> Private peering follows different rulesets than public. Many respectable 
> organizations still don't understand that you can Peer privately without 
> exporting each others advertisements in order to save expenditures to 
> third parties when transiting traffic between the two networks. Security 
> percautions are also treated different. What you would offer a partner 
> sometimes exceeds the access you'd allow the public.
> While there are benefits to registering space that isn't routed on the 
> public network, such space needs to be declared as such. Until that 
> time, people will continue to hijack those networks and use them for 
> their own ends.
> -Jack

More information about the NANOG mailing list