De-bogon not possible via arin policy.

Cameron Byrne cb.list6 at
Fri Dec 16 11:38:28 UTC 2011

On Dec 15, 2011 10:35 PM, "Brielle Bruns" <bruns at> wrote:
> 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.

5/8 is not used for squat space in this case, somebody along this thread
mentioned 5/8 as an example, not a data point.  There's an effort to avoid
squat space that appears in the dfz. Yes, that is a moving target.


> --
> Brielle Bruns
> The Summit Open Source Development Group
>    /

More information about the NANOG mailing list