[137334] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Fri Feb 11 02:35:50 2011
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 23:34:41 -0800
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D54A4EC.5060209@brightok.net>
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>, NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2/10/11 6:54 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/10/2011 8:44 PM, John Curran wrote:
>>
>> If you'd like to reserve a large block for purposes of LSN
>> without any concern of future address conflict, it would be
>> best to actually reserve it via community-developed policy.
>>
>
> When there are X /8 networks reserved by the USG, it seems extremely
> wasteful to reserve from what little space we have a large block
> dedicated to LSN when the USG can give assurances that
reserved and assigned are different. The prefixes are assigned.
> 1) We won't route this, so use it
>
> 2) We won't be giving it back or allocating it to someone else where it
> might be routed.
>
> All proposals concerning reserving a /8 of unallocated space for LSN
> purposes 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 appropriate connections to ask the USG on the matter. It is, after
> all, in the USG'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), yet some do apparently have concern since there
> has been multiple requests for a new allocation for LSN purposes (in the
> IETF and in RIRs).
>
>
> Jack
>
