[147587] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: De-bogon not possible via arin policy.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jimmy Hess)
Thu Dec 15 02:15:14 2011
In-Reply-To: <47067B6B-1026-42CF-A133-A18A70553731@virtualized.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 01:14:15 -0600
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:47 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
[snip]
> I'm confused. When justifying 'need' in an address allocation request, wh=
at difference does it make >whether an address in use was allocated by an R=
IR or was squatted upon? =A0Last I heard, renumbering >out of (say) RFC 191=
8 space into public space was still a justification for address space. =A0H=
as this >changed?
It is a potential network change that could require additional address
space, if an operator plans a complete and immediate renumbering, but
the choice to renumber is not an automatic justification for the same
number of non-RFC1918 IPs as the count of IPs available in their
RFC1918 space networks.
I'm sure the RIRs are not allowing that.
A RFC1918 network is not a "normal" network; and this is not a
renumbering in the same manner as a renumbering from public IP space
to new public IP space.
The operator might have to show why they shouldn't renumber their 1918
network partially, over time, in a manner compatible with the RIR
policy for initial service provider allocations, instead of all at
once.
In other words: What is the technical justification that all those
rfc1918 addressed hosts suddenly need to be moved immediately, and
not over a normal allocation time frame for new public networks?
When building the rfc1918 network originally, the architect did not
need to follow RFC 2050, RFC3194, etc, so it is quite possible that
the 1918 network does not efficiently utilize IP addresses.
That means the RIR has to establish that the criterion is good enough.
"I have a rfc1918 /16 that I use, so give me a public /16, please"
is not good enough.
That would essentially provide a backdoor around normal RIR justified
need policy, if it were allowed......
--
-JH
