The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8

Mike Hale eyeronic.design at gmail.com
Wed Sep 19 04:11:50 UTC 2012


"this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world.  luckily, the
 disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans."

I'd love to hear the reasoning for this.  Why would it be bad policy
to force companies to use the resources they are assigned or give them
back to the general pool?

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
>> When IPv4 exhaustion pain reaches a sufficiently high level of pain;
>> there is a significant chance people who will be convinced that any
>> use of IPv4 which does not involve  announcing and  routing the address
>> space on the internet is a "Non-Use" of IPv4 addresses,
>>
>> and that that particular point of view will prevail over the concept
>> and convenience of being allowed to maintain unique registration for
>> non-connected usage.
>>
>> And perception that those addresses are up for grabs, either for using
>> on RFC1918 networks for NAT, or for insisting that internet registry
>> allocations be recalled and those resources put towards use by
>> connected networks......
>>
>> If you do have such an unconnected network, it may be prudent to have
>> a connected network as well, and announce all your space anyways (just
>> not route the addresses)
>
> this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world.  luckily, the
> disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans.
>
> randy
>



-- 
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0



More information about the NANOG mailing list