The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8
eyeronic.design at gmail.com
Wed Sep 19 05:27:13 UTC 2012
You know what sucks worse than NAT?
Memorizing an IPv6 address. ;)
Thanks for the clarifications. I don't necessarily agree with some of
the arguments...but since I'm not fortunate enough to be in possession
of a /8, that agreement (or lack thereof) is worth the electrons this
email is sent with (less so, even).
The assumption behind my original question is that the IP space simply
isn't used anywhere near as efficiently as it could be. While
reclaiming even a fraction of those /8s won't put off the eventual
depletion, it'll make it slightly more painless over the next year or
Is that worth the effort required in getting them back?
At any rate, thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll stop
derailing the thread now.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
>> "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?
> the ipv4 pool is about gone, move to ipv6
> nat sucks bigtime, big nats suck even bigger
> global bgp never converges
> all devices fail, often two or more at once
> 'private' routing announcements will leak unless there is an air gap
> get over it and get back to work moving packets
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
More information about the NANOG