[137331] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ricky Beam)
Fri Feb 11 01:51:26 2011
To: "David Conrad" <drc@virtualized.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:51:04 -0500
From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D9120AC0-9679-430D-B76F-1CFBDEF8D96F@virtualized.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:31:21 -0500, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
wrote:
> 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.
You missed the "anticipates external connectivity to the Internet" part.
Networks that never touch the internet have RFC1918 address space to use.
(and that works 99.999% of the time.)
> 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.
Per the wording of ARIN's policy, they require justification for such an
allocation. (i.e. a damn good reason 1918 addresses aren't going to work
for you.)
--Ricky
