[102611] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 2008.02.20 NANOG 42 IPv4 PTR queries for unallocated space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Vegoda)
Thu Feb 21 10:45:31 2008
From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
CC: "michael.dillon@bt.com" <michael.dillon@bt.com>,
"nanog@nanog.org"
<nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:43:19 -0800
In-Reply-To: <2D84726C-5959-4E3C-8654-4E8B61CA1151@delong.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 21/02/2008 07:22, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> I know of at least one large telecom provider which is using 100/8.
> In my opinion,
> this should not be a reason to delay the use of these addresses for a
> legitimate
> purpose. Rewarding address squatting simply isn't a good thing.
No one is attempting to reward address squatting.
The main reasons for this work are to try and quantify the scale and
distribution of the problem. I hope that with some more data and a fuller
analysis we will find that there isn't anything major to worry about.
But if the problem is significant, I'd like to be able to pre-warn people s=
o
that they can take prepare themselves for it. That might mean doing simple
things like tweaking technical support and fault finding procedures,
possibly something else.
Regards,
Leo
