[137320] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Thu Feb 10 22:16:03 2011
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 03:15:35 +0000
In-Reply-To: <4D54A4EC.5060209@brightok.net>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:54 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> When there are X /8 networks reserved by the USG, it seems extremely wast=
eful to reserve from what little space we have a large block dedicated to L=
SN when the USG can give assurances that
>=20
> 1) We won't route this, so use it
>=20
> 2) We won't be giving it back or allocating it to someone else where it m=
ight be routed.
>=20
> All proposals concerning reserving a /8 of unallocated space for LSN purp=
oses was seen as obscene, and many proposals compromised with a /10, which =
some feel is too small. I don't think it would hurt for someone with approp=
riate connections to ask the USG on the matter. It is, after all, in the US=
G's interest and doesn't conflict with their current practices. Many don't =
consider it a concern (shown by wide use of DoD space already deployed), ye=
t some do apparently have concern since there has been multiple requests fo=
r a new allocation for LSN purposes (in the IETF and in RIRs).
Indeed, that does sound simple. Obtaining such a commitment may prove to be=
=20
a little more difficult, since it permanently encumbers use of one or more=
=20
address blocks. I am happy to ask, however, if there is a strong level of=
=20
support to do so. Alternatively, there is valid contact information listed=
=20
in WHOIS for US DOD and other commercial /8 address block holders if you=20
wish to ask one directly.
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
p.s. Considering that we've collectively allocated the 95%+ of the address=
=20
space which was made available outside of DoD's original blocks, and=20
the DoD additionally returned 2 more /8's for the community (noted her=
e:=20
<http://blog.icann.org/2008/02/recovering-ipv4-address-space/>), they=
=20
may actually have a different perspective us coming back to impair som=
e
of the remaining space they still hold. I'm happy to discuss it, but=
=20
wanted to point out the long history and potential different perspecti=
ve.
=
