De-bogon not possible via arin policy.

Cameron Byrne cb.list6 at
Fri Dec 16 00:59:15 UTC 2011

On Dec 15, 2011 6:43 PM, "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen at> wrote:
> On 15-Dec-11 16:31, Ricky Beam wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:36:32 -0500, David Conrad <drc at>
> > wrote:
> >> ... I had thought new allocations are based on demonstrated need. The
> >> fact that addresses are in use would seem to suggest they're needed.
> >
> > That depends on how you see their "demontrated need."  The way I look
> > at it, if you build your network squatting on someone elses addresses,
> > that's a problem of your own making and does not equate to any
> > "immediate need" on my (channeling ARIN) part.
> However, if they actually have the number of hosts claimed, that
> justifies the space they're asking for.  What addresses they're using
> today is irrelevant.  ARIN policy only /suggests/ that they use RFC 1918
> space; they are allowed to get public space if they want it.

Right. But actually getting the space seems to be the issue since the only
way space comes out is slow start /18 or immediate need /16? Is that right ?

> > This is a mess they created for themselves and should have known was
> > going to bite them in the ass sooner than later.  Translation: they
> > should have started working to resolve this a long time ago. (or never
> > done it in the first place.)
> Agreed, but what's done is done.  What /should/ have been done is now
> irrelevant.

Yes. Hind sight is 20/20...  From bag phones to the iPhone, the evolution
in cellular data has not been predictable.

> > And if I may say, they've demonstrated no need at all for public
> > address space.  They simply need to stop using 5/8 as if it were 10/8
> > -- i.e. they need more private address space.  They don't need
> > *public* IPv4 space for that.  They will need to re-engineer their
> > network to handle the addressing overlaps (ala NAT444.)
> Presumably, they "need" to renumber out of 5/8 so that their customers
> can reach sites legitimately assigned addresses in 5/8.
> However, those customers seem to have gotten along okay for years
> without public addresses, so why not renumber them into a second
> instance of 10/8?  When I was in the consulting world, I had one
> customer with eight instances of 10/8, so I know it's doable.

Not always. Sometimes backend systems require customers use unique space,
and that is really only the tip of that iceberg.... IMS does not work well
with duplicate space.

> If they want to give every customer a public address, IPv6 provides more
> than they could ever possibly use--and ~34M new IPv6 eyeballs would give
> the content industry a nice kick in the pants...

Yep.  Sometimes I feel I personally preach and promote my ipv6 sermon too
the point of being bothersome to the list.  Apparently, my good word has
not yet reached some. So, for all those that have considered ipv6 as the
answer, I suggest you take the bold move of being part of the solution by
ensuring your (and however you influence) phone does ipv6 on the cellular
network. It is always good to lead by doing.

On the T-Mobile USA network, the process is here

While I have not verified it myself, I hear the NEW gsm/umts galaxy nexus
does ipv6 on 3g very well.

In all fairness, Verizon LTE has ipv6 as well.

Regarding this thread in general, I asked a question about slow start and
got a good answer about immediate need. Thanks !


> S
> --
> Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
> CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

More information about the NANOG mailing list