[140850] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon May 23 13:42:03 2011
In-Reply-To: <5EAD56F4-BB1F-4704-A7A2-283709E7C93F@virtualized.org>
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 12:36:56 -0500
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Sent from my iPad
On May 23, 2011, at 11:32, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
> On May 23, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Mark Farina wrote:
>> Is the DoD releasing this range to Rogers?
>=20
> Unlikely, although it might be an interesting case of testing ARIN's trans=
fer policy if it was the case :-).
>=20
>> Or has Rogers squatted on this space due to exhaustion of their 10/8 use?=
>=20
> Probably. I've heard other large providers having similar issues (resultin=
g in several attempts to designate more RFC 1918, all of which were all shot=
down).
>=20
Really? All of them? Are you sure about that?
I believe there is a policy proposal in the ARIN region which, I have it on g=
ood authority
is still active.
True, it doesn't technically designate more RFC-1918, but, it does create a /=
10 of space
for shared use for the purpose of LSN intermediate space or other carrier-le=
vel private
network usage.
>> We've seen other vendors and ISP squat on previously unused ranges (the 1=
/8 or 5/8s).
>=20
> Yes, however at the time those ISPs squatted on those addresses (and other=
s), they had not yet been allocated by IANA pretty much guaranteeing there w=
ould be collisions when the IPv4 free pool was exhausted. In this case, the=
block has been allocated yet doesn't appear to be in the routing system and=
I'm not sure it ever has been (at least authorized to be). I'm guessing Ro=
gers is making the assumption that the chances are probably small that one o=
f their customers will need to communicate with a non-announced US DoD netwo=
rk. I suspect they aren't the first to make this assumption.
>=20
More likely they are making the assumption that their private internal use o=
f the address
space won't conflict with DoD's (apparently) private internal use of the add=
ress space.
Owen
