Question on 7.0.0.0/8

Mon Apr 16 02:33:21 UTC 2007

At 06:13 PM 4/15/2007, Jeroen Massar wrote:

>michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> >> We checked with IANA, ARIN, and the US DoD regarding 7.0.0.0/8.  We
> >> were told that this netblock should not see the light of day,
> >
> > 10/8 used to be a DoD address block, but it was also used exclusively in
> > their blacker networks and similar non-connected infrastructure. The
> > result is that 10/8 was opened up for others to use as well. Could we do
> > similar with 7/8?
>
>What problem would that solve instead of reducing a wee tiny bit the
>collisions that might occur? Large networks are currently already
>established and renumbering them from 10.0.0.0/8 to 7.0.0.0/8 would
>still be renumbering. For those networks it is much better to simply get
>a block from their RIR and use that and never have collisions.

Set up a private allocation registry, and allocate chunks of 7/8 (or 
some other block that is generally available) to companies for a 
small annual fee. This would open up space for use in private 
networks that would then be sufficiently unique to cross-connect, 
merge or at least provide a bit of landing space for use as border 
addressing in organizations that are hopelessly over-using 10/8, 
192.168/16 and 172.16/12 and need some space that's guaranteed unique 
for dealing with intercompany private interconnects, mergers or whatever.

I recall discussion of approaches with IPv6 to do something more 
intelligent in doling out private address space in ways that'd help 
limit conflicts. Why not make use of more DoD space to do something 
like this in IPv4?

>Also note that Fastweb in Italy is already using 7.0.0.0/8 inside their
>network for their customers, who sit behind a NAT.

Oh well, so much for using that block for a registry driven 
allocation system then. Any other blocks that could be used?

>Greets,
>  Jeroen
>
>