[137588] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Feb 17 09:25:51 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <09599885-AF04-4C1A-B84F-9F1AC393E13F@muada.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:20:30 -0800
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 11 feb 2011, at 17:51, William Herrin wrote:
>=20
>> We can't backport ULA into IPv4 private
>> addressing; there aren't enough addresses for the math to work. So we
>> either make such folks jump through all kinds of hoops to get their
>> networks to function, or we assign addresses that could otherwise be
>> used on the big-I Internet.
>=20
> Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give =
us a few more months, but:
>=20
> Does the US government really need more than 150 million addresses, of =
which about half are not publically routed? Non-publically routed =
addresses can be reused by others as long as the stuff both users =
connect to doesn't overlap.
The DoD does not seem particularly anxious to announce or explain their =
usage of those blocks
to the rest of the community.
They have much larger quantities of significantly more sophisticated =
armaments than ARIN.
I agree it would be nice if they would voluntarily return whatever is =
appropriate to the community, but,
as you say, there is little upside to them doing so anyway. Certainly =
not enough to make the risks
of attempting to obtain it through any means other than voluntary return =
feasible or even worthy
of consideration.
Owen
