[137328] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Fri Feb 11 00:32:17 2011
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <op.vqpze2fhtfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:31:21 -1000
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 10, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:43:50 -0500, Matthew Kaufman =
<matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
>> There is no one universal "global routing table". They probably =
appear in someone's routing table, somewhere... just not yours.
> Using public address space for private networking is a gross misuse of =
the resource. =20
Amusingly enough, I personally (along with others) made arguments along =
these lines back in 1995 or so when the IAB was coming out with =
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1814.txt. Given the publication of 1814, you =
can probably guess how far those arguments fared.
> Go to any registry and ask for address space for your private =
networking that you do not intend to announce to the internet. They =
will laugh at you, and point you to RFC1918. (and likely flag you as =
someone to whom address space should never be assigned.) The only =
reason legacy holders get away with such crap is because there's no =
clear contract governing their assignment.
I haven't looked recently but I believe all the RIRs have policies that =
requires them to allocate unique numbers regardless of whether those =
addresses will be used on the Internet, as long as the requester =
documents appropriate utilization.
> Then send out nasty sounding letters informing whomever that X address =
space has not been announced to the public internet in Y years; on Z =
date, the space will reenter the IANA/ICANN free pool for reassignment. =
(cue lawyers :-)) =20
I gather you're volunteering to pay higher fees to cover the increased =
legal costs?
Regards,
-drc
