[147627] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: De-bogon not possible via arin policy.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ricky Beam)
Thu Dec 15 17:32:26 2011
To: "David Conrad" <drc@virtualized.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:31:19 -0500
From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <DCC74AD8-B9FB-4A6C-9F02-A95AEFDBB29A@virtualized.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:36:32 -0500, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
wrote:
> ... I had thought new allocations are based on demonstrated need. The
> fact that addresses are in use would seem to suggest they're needed.
That depends on how you see their "demontrated need." The way I look at
it, if you build your network squatting on someone elses addresses, that's
a problem of your own making and does not equate to any "immediate need"
on my (channeling ARIN) part. This is a mess they created for themselves
and should have known was going to bite them in the ass sooner than
later. Translation: they should have started working to resolve this a
long time ago. (or never done it in the first place.)
And if I may say, they've demonstrated no need at all for public address
space. They simply need to stop using 5/8 as if it were 10/8 -- i.e. they
need more private address space. They don't need *public* IPv4 space for
that. They will need to re-engineer their network to handle the
addressing overlaps (ala NAT444.)
