IAB and "private" numbering

Mon Nov 14 14:09:13 UTC 2005

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:
>
>> I'd like to see some acknowledgement that there are legitimate uses
>> of number resources that don't include "the public Internet".
>
> It's already there in RFC 2050:

Thanks for the reminder.

> 3 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.

FWIW, I'd change s/routable/routed/g since all addresses are "routable". 
Once I actually heard someone say "a Cisco won't even accept a 10 net
address".  Not sure how that person thought all those addresses are
being used, then.  Imagine Cisco cutting itself off from the lucrative
RFC1918 market...

>> Does this concern make sense?
>
> No.
>
>> Is there a(nother) better venue than the IAB?
>
> ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, LACNIC, AfriNIC, NRO

I just get concerned when hearing people (e.g. at the recent
ARIN/NANOG meeting) talking about reclaiming address-space or ASNs
based on lack of appearance in "Public".
I'm not saying that reclaimation shouldn't be pursued, but that it
should use other criteria or procedures.

Tony

> My company is one of several companies that operate
> IP networks that are not part of the public Internet but
> which do use globally unique registered IP addresses.
>
> --Michael Dillon