[140938] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Bonomi)
Wed May 25 15:37:17 2011
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 14:36:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinS5C5YFuMwKMzwiQ+2qSfvf-8fng@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi.com@nanog.org Wed May 25 13:44:21 2011
> Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 14:43:24 -0400
> Subject: Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space
> From: Christopher Pilkington <cjp@0x1.net>
> To: Michael Dillon <wavetossed@googlemail.com>
> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Michael Dillon
> <wavetossed@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > So we should CONDONE such borrowing and recommend a couple of /8s to
> > use in North America. Perhaps one could be DOD for those operators
> > that do not carry any DOD traffic and one could be that /8 from
> > Softbank Japan, 126/8 if I recall it correctly. People who carry DOD
> > traffic could borrow the APNIC block.
>
> I recommend 44/8. Does it make sense that ham radio operators have
> routable IP address space any longer? (Seems to be still advertised,
> though.)
Still advertised, still in (light, limited) use.
