[147608] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: De-bogon not possible via arin policy.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Thu Dec 15 11:17:08 2011
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbXnmQ=L7YsLoEfQ-bq8EMQa6q32SMVhqa9PT5s+TF=JZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:16:12 -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
Jimmy,
On Dec 14, 2011, at 11:14 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> 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.
I'll admit I haven't been following ARIN policy making for some time. =
Can you point to the ARIN policy that makes this distinction?
> 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?
I used RFC 1918 space as an example. A more likely scenario is needing =
to renumber out of recently allocated squat space (particularly in =
situations where RFC 1918 is not an alternative).
> 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.
>=20
> That would essentially provide a backdoor around normal RIR justified
> need policy, if it were allowed......
Hmm. If one makes the assumption that the (1918/squat) address space is =
being used in an efficient manner and there is a business/technical =
requirement to renumber that space into public space, I would have =
thought the acceptance of justification would depend more on the =
business/technical requirement, not the fact that 1918/squat space is =
being used.
Regards,
-drc
