[137629] 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 14:10:48 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA7D1DE7-AEE1-4B05-8904-F74FA9BF1259@corp.arin.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 11:05:54 -0800
To: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
Cc: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:57 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>
>> Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> writes:
>>> ...
>>> I agree it would be nice if they would voluntarily return whatever
>>> is appropriate to the community, but,
>>
>> You mean like they already did with 49/8, 50/8 (both formerly Joint
>> Technical Command), 10/8 (formerly ARPAnet), and 7/8 (DNIC)?
>>
>> As the biggest returner of IPv4 space by a fair margin,
>> notwithstanding their current holdings I think the DoD is quite
>> justified in saying "I gave at the office" and hanging up.
>
As they are also the biggest consumer of IPv4 space by a fair margin,
that statement rings a bit hollow.
> Actually, as I have noted before, the US DoD has contractually
> agreed to return to ARIN unneeded IPv4 address space if/when
> such becomes available, so that it may be used by the Internet
> community.
>
This statement, on the other hand, is a good thing.
Owen
