De-bogon not possible via arin policy.

Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at
Thu Dec 15 09:42:40 CST 2011


On 12/14/2011 11:14 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:47 PM, David Conrad<drc at virtualized.org>  wrote:
> [snip]
>> I'm confused. When justifying 'need' in an address allocation request, what difference does it make>whether an address in use was allocated by an RIR or was squatted upon?  Last I heard, renumbering>out of (say) RFC 1918 space into public space was still a justification for address space.  Has this>changed?
> It is a potential network change that could require additional address
> space, if an operator plans a complete and immediate renumbering,  but
> the choice to renumber is not an automatic justification for the same
> number of  non-RFC1918 IPs   as the count of IPs available in their
> RFC1918 space networks.
> I'm sure the RIRs are not allowing that.
>
> A RFC1918 network is not a "normal" network; and this is not a
> renumbering in the same manner as a renumbering from public IP space
> to new public IP space.
>
>
>
>
> The operator might have to show why they shouldn't renumber their 1918
> network partially, over time,  in a manner compatible with the RIR
> policy for initial service provider allocations, instead of all at
> once.
>
> In other words:   What is the technical justification that all those
> rfc1918  addressed hosts suddenly need to be moved  immediately,   and
>   not over a normal allocation time frame for new public networks?

Here's a simple one involving "squat" space: You have a network that 
internally is using *all* of 10.0.0.0/8 *and* 5.0.0.0/8 (because you 
have enough customers to fill two /8s).

Now that 5.0.0.0/8 is being allocated, you need to move out of it (so 
that your users can reach the real 5.0.0.0/8 sites).

Why wouldn't this be sufficient justification for a new /8 from ARIN?

Matthew Kaufman




More information about the NANOG mailing list