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

Mike Hale eyeronic.design at gmail.com
Wed Sep 19 04:49:37 UTC 2012


So...why do you need publicly routable IP addresses if they aren't
publicly routable?

Maybe I'm being dense here, but I'm truly puzzled by this (other than
the "this is how our network works and we're not changing it"
argument).

I can accept the legal argument (and I'm assuming that, in the
original contracts for IP space, there wasn't a clause that allowed
Internic or its successor to reclaim space).

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
>
> In message <CAN3um4zGsbRL9K2snL0N6qDgP7RU_4dw_z1F0RQ3bnbr1H8eDA at mail.gmail.com>, M
> ike Hale writes:
>> "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?
>
> Go back and re-read the entire thread.  No one is arguing that
> unused resources shouldn't be returned.  The problem is that people,
> including the person that started the petition that triggered this
> thread, have no idea about legitimate use that isn't visible on the
> publically visible routing tables.
>
>                 Routed => in use
>                 Not routed =/> not in use
>
> Mark
>
>> 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
>>
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org



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



More information about the NANOG mailing list