|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 20:17:44 -0500 From: Curtis Maurand <cmaurand@xyonet.com> To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> In-Reply-To: <C0709A42-CA99-4104-90CF-6E61EC226D57@delong.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On 2/8/2011 7:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > It doesn't have to be a public network to need globally unique addresses. > > There is NO policy requirement to use NAT or RFC-1918 for private networks. Just a suggestion that folks be considerate of the community where they can. > > I'll bet most of them would have no problem under current policy. They only need to show need for ~8,000,000 hosts, including subnet overhead. > > If you wanted to, your medical company could have easily justified at least a /17 and probably a /16 under current policy. > > There's really nothing to be gained from attempting to go after what might be reclaimed from the legacy block holders. EIther > they will return their addresses or contribute them to the market or they won't. Attempts at forced reclamation will only make > that situation worse and are unlikely to result in any actual reclamation of addresses before the conclusion of protracted > and ugly law suits that would be very expensive. Such lawsuits are unlikely to reach conclusion before the need for > massive quantities of IPv4 address space is in the past. > > Owen > Point taken. --C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |