[147580] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: De-bogon not possible via arin policy.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Wed Dec 14 23:48:41 2011
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbU_t0yaxYhKZrnD+9+1V=CgRBEW6vSsvZC7zYszinGj9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:47:36 -0800
To: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 14, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote
> Wait... you had started using bogon addresses / "squatted" space not
> allocated and claimed the number of IP addresses your network is =
using that were not
> allocated by a RIR settles the need justification question?
I'm confused. When justifying 'need' in an address allocation request, =
what difference does it make whether an address in use was allocated by =
an RIR or was squatted upon? Last I heard, renumbering out of (say) RFC =
1918 space into public space was still a justification for address =
space. Has this changed?
> You need to have all the documentation to show the actual justified
> technical need for the IPs you request, such as what each specific
> address is used for.
Perhaps I'm naive, but I tend to give folks like Cameron the benefit of =
the doubt when it comes to dealing with IP address allocation requests =
and assume he provided a bit more information than what you're =
suggesting. I find the suggestions by other posters that he look at =
IPv6 particularly amusing.
Unfortunately, regardless of the specifics of Cameron's case, the =
reality is that the traditional model of address allocation (i.e., "to =
each according to need" to quote a 19th century philosopher) is rapidly =
coming to a close. I expect there will be many more situations like =
Cameron's in the future.
Regards,
-drc
