"Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
jbates at brightok.net
Thu Feb 10 20:54:36 CST 2011
On 2/10/2011 8:44 PM, John Curran wrote:
> If you'd like to reserve a large block for purposes of LSN
> without any concern of future address conflict, it would be
> best to actually reserve it via community-developed policy.
When there are X /8 networks reserved by the USG, it seems extremely
wasteful to reserve from what little space we have a large block
dedicated to LSN when the USG can give assurances that
1) We won't route this, so use it
2) We won't be giving it back or allocating it to someone else where it
might be routed.
All proposals concerning reserving a /8 of unallocated space for LSN
purposes was seen as obscene, and many proposals compromised with a /10,
which some feel is too small. I don't think it would hurt for someone
with appropriate connections to ask the USG on the matter. It is, after
all, in the USG's interest and doesn't conflict with their current
practices. Many don't consider it a concern (shown by wide use of DoD
space already deployed), yet some do apparently have concern since there
has been multiple requests for a new allocation for LSN purposes (in the
IETF and in RIRs).
More information about the NANOG