[140955] 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)
Thu May 26 01:33:35 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinS5C5YFuMwKMzwiQ+2qSfvf-8fng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 22:27:10 -0700
To: Christopher Pilkington <cjp@0x1.net>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On May 25, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Christopher Pilkington wrote:
> 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.)
>
> -cjp (n2mcs)
Why shouldn't they?
Owen DeLong
KB6MER
