DNS Changer items
randy.whitney at verizon.com
Wed Aug 15 15:51:32 UTC 2012
On 8/15/2012 11:36 AM, TJ wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
>> In a message written on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:46:52AM +0100, Stephen
>> Wilcox wrote:
>> From the article:
>> ] The address space was quarantined for six weeks before being returned to
>> ] the RIPE NCC's available pool of IPv4 address space. It was then
>> ] randomly reallocated to a new resource holder according to normal
>> ] allocation procedures.
>> ] As the RIPE NCC nears IPv4 exhaustion, it will reduce the quarantine
>> ] period of returned address space accordingly to ensure that there is no
>> ] more IPv4 address space available before the last /8 is reached. The
>> ] RIPE NCC recognises that this shortened quarantine could lead to
>> ] routability problems and offers its members assistance to reduce this.
>> While I understand that in the face of IPv4 exhaustion long quarantine
>> periods are probably no longer a good idea, I think 6 weeks is
>> shockingly short. I also think to blanket apply the quarantine is
>> a little short sighted, there are cases that need a longer cooling
>> off period, and this may be one of them.
>> I think the RIPE membership, and indeed the policy making bodies
>> of all RIR's should look at their re-allocation policies with this
>> case in mind and see if a corner case like this doesn't present a
>> surprising result.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but with RIPE's pool nearing exhaustion (in as
> little as 3 weeks, depending upon who you ask and how you count) isn't this
> sort of a moot point? I suppose this block could have been moved to the
> back of the list instead of randomly re-allocated, but would a few more
> weeks really have helped?
Perhaps it should not have been re-allocated at all, rather than cause
the unsuspecting allocatee trouble they would not have seen from
More information about the NANOG