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

Wed Sep 19 06:31:27 UTC 2012

On Sep 18, 2012, at 21:11 , Mike Hale <eyeronic.design at gmail.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?
> 

Many of them _ARE_ using them, just not using them directly on the public
internet. There is nothing wrong with that.

As others have said... !announced != !used.

Owen

> 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