Last of ipv4 /8's allocated
cmaurand at xyonet.com
Tue Feb 8 19:17:44 CST 2011
On 2/8/2011 7:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> It doesn't have to be a public network to need globally unique addresses.
> There is NO policy requirement to use NAT or RFC-1918 for private networks. Just a suggestion that folks be considerate of the community where they can.
> I'll bet most of them would have no problem under current policy. They only need to show need for ~8,000,000 hosts, including subnet overhead.
> If you wanted to, your medical company could have easily justified at least a /17 and probably a /16 under current policy.
> There's really nothing to be gained from attempting to go after what might be reclaimed from the legacy block holders. EIther
> they will return their addresses or contribute them to the market or they won't. Attempts at forced reclamation will only make
> that situation worse and are unlikely to result in any actual reclamation of addresses before the conclusion of protracted
> and ugly law suits that would be very expensive. Such lawsuits are unlikely to reach conclusion before the need for
> massive quantities of IPv4 address space is in the past.
More information about the NANOG