[147609] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: De-bogon not possible via arin policy.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Thu Dec 15 11:25:08 2011
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1112150856070.1202@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:24:10 -0800
To: Justin M. Streiner <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 15, 2011, at 6:07 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, David Conrad wrote:
>> 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?
>=20
> I tend to think of squatting in the sense of using a resource (could =
be an IP address block, could be an empty house, could be just about =
anything) that the person who is using it does not have permission to do =
so.
Right, but how does that impact whether or not non-squat space is =
justified? =46rom my perspective, the actual bit patterns associated =
with an address in use shouldn't have any impact on the whether or not =
it is deemed by our ARIN overlords to be needed to be in use.
Regards,
-drc
