"Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers

Jimmy Hess mysidia at gmail.com
Thu Feb 10 01:13:49 CST 2011


On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Paul Vixie <vixie at isc.org> wrote:
> David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> writes:

> whether either DEC or HP could have qualified for a /8 under current rules,
> since the basis for these (pre-RIR) allocations was that they needed more
> than a /16 and these were the days before CIDR.  (at the time i received
> the /8 allocation at DEC, we had a half dozen /16's several dozen /24's that

With them not requiring a /8 in the first place (after CIDR);  one
begins to wonder how much of
their /8 allocations they actually touched in any meaningful way.

Perhaps the RIRs  should personally and directly  ask each /8  legacy
holder to provide
account of  their utilization  (which portions of the allocation is
used, how many hosts),
and  ASK  for each  unused   /22  [or shorter]  to be returned.

The legacy holders  might (or might not)  refuse.  They might (or
might not)  tell the RIRs  "Hell no"
In any case,  the  registry  should ASK   and   publish an  indication
for each legacy /8 at least.

So the community will know which (if any)  legacy /8 holders are
likely to be returning the community's
IPv4 addresses  that they obtained but don't have need for.

The community should also know which /8  legacy holders say  "Hell no,
 we're keeping all our /8s,
and not telling you how much of the community's IPv4 resources we're
actually using".

--
-JH




More information about the NANOG mailing list