De-bogon not possible via arin policy.

Brielle Bruns bruns at
Thu Dec 15 21:35:34 CST 2011

On 12/15/11 3:31 PM, 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. 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.)
> 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.)

Heh, if this is about TMO, then they're squatting on alot more then just 
5/8...  My phone has an IP address in 22/8, and I've seen it get IPs in 
25/8, 26/8 as well.

I've always wondered what the deal was with the obviously squatted 
addresses that my device gets.

Brielle Bruns
The Summit Open Source Development Group    /

More information about the NANOG mailing list