Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation

Martin Hannigan martin at
Thu Sep 10 21:45:59 UTC 2009

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, David Conrad <drc at> wrote:

> On Sep 9, 2009, at 8:41 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> Not sure when ICANN got into the business of economic bailouts,
> ??

The blog posting implies it:

"AfriNIC and LACNIC have fewest IPv4 /8s and service the regions with the
most developing economies. We decided that those RIRs should have four of
the easiest to use /8s reserved for them."

There is also a possible unintended consequence. If v4 address space markets
do end up being legitimized (I do believe that they will FWIW)  ICANN is in
effect declaring one class of space more valuable than another an
arbitrarily assigning that value.

>  but the mechanism that ICANN has defined seems patently unfair.
> RFC 2777 is unfair?  Or are you unhappy that LACNIC and AfriNIC have 2 /8s
> from the least tainted pools?

I don't have a comment on the RFC. There is currently a global policy that
the RIR's and ICANN agreed to that defines the allocation of /8's from IANA
to RIR's. That policy doesnt include a set-aside and I think that
arbitrarily adding one is not in the spirit of cooperation. I think that
it's "good" that ICANN is being proactive, but I also think that it's "bad"
that they chose this to be proactive about. It's possible that not
everything is above the table as well. I think that the perception is
reality here though. ICANN has arbitrarily created process that impacts
RIR's unequally. To me, that's unfair.

Question is -- do a few /8's really matter? In the end game, I think that
they do all considered.



Martin Hannigan                               martin at
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants

More information about the NANOG mailing list