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 telecomplete.co.uk
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: 126.96.36.199/8 is such a space, owned by IBM.
> > Some illicit use documented at www.ris.ripe.net :
> > 188.8.131.52/20
> > 184.108.40.206/20 , both from AS 3786 (dacom.co.kr, bora.net) , 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 got withdrawn on 04/14.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.
More information about the NANOG