[156876] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIRs give out unique addresses (Was: something has a /8! ...)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Sep 28 10:08:20 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120928120729.GA17888@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:04:43 -0700
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Bill, I am unable to make sense of your reply.
The question I was answering was:
"Wouldn't you say that there is a very real expectation that when you =
request address space through ARIN or RIPE that it would be routable?" =
(Which I admit at the time I interpreted to also indicate an expectation =
that it would be routed, but I see now could be ambiguous).
In that context, I believe that the policy section I quoted indicates =
that there is no expectation that numbers issued by ARIN or RIPE (or any =
other RIR) "will be routed" and other policy sections certainly convey =
that ARIN (and the other RIRs) have no control over routers, so I'm not =
sure it matters what they say about routability.
As to your statement about legacy assignments, I fail to see any part of =
ARIN policy that distinguishes them from any other assignment with =
regards to the application of policy. However, other than the section =
quoted below (which essentially states that some level of connectivity =
is required to justify new resource allocations or assignments), I =
believe that the NRPM is mute with regards to connectivity on all =
addresses. Since there are, by definition, no new legacy allocations or =
assignments, I'm not sure how legacy is relevant to the discussion at =
hand.
Owen
On Sep 28, 2012, at 5:07 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>=20
> not how i read that section Owen... =20
>=20
> "...networks require interconnectivity and the private IP address =
numbers are
> ineffective, globally unique addresses may be requested and used to =
provide this interconnectivity."
>=20
> One does not have to request RFC 1918 space from ARIN (or other RIR)=20=
>=20
> and the NRPM is mute on legacy address assignments wrt "connectivity".
>=20
> /bill
>=20
>=20
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 07:32:17PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I believe that this section of NRPM says no.
>>=20
>> 4.3.5. Non-connected Networks
>>=20
>> End-users not currently connected to an ISP and/or not planning to be =
connected to the Internet are encouraged to use private IP address =
numbers reserved for non-connected networks (see RFC 1918). When =
private, non-connected networks require interconnectivity and the =
private IP address numbers are ineffective, globally unique addresses =
may be requested and used to provide this interconnectivity.
>>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 7:56 AM, "Naslund, Steve" <SNaslund@medline.com> =
wrote:
>>=20
>>> I suppose that ARIN would say that they do not guarantee routability
>>> because they do not have operational control of Internet routers.
>>> However, Wouldn't you say that there is a very real expectation that
>>> when you request address space through ARIN or RIPE that it would be
>>> routable? I would think that what ARIN and RIPE are really saying =
is
>>> that they issue unique addresses and you need to get your service
>>> provider to route them. FWIW, the discussion of the military having
>>> addresses pulled back is pretty much a non-starter unless they want =
to
>>> give them back. When the management of IP address space was moved =
from
>>> the US DoD, there were memorandums of understanding that the =
military
>>> controlled their assigned address space and nothing would change =
that.
>>> I know this for a fact because I was around this discussion in the =
US
>>> Air Force.
>>>=20
>>> Steven Naslund
>>>=20
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran@arin.net]=20
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:40 AM
>>> To: Jeroen Massar
>>> Cc: NANOG list
>>> Subject: Re: RIRs give out unique addresses (Was: something has a =
/8!
>>> ...)
>>>=20
>>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 2012-09-20 16:01 , John Curran wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> It's very clear in the ARIN region as well. =46rom the ARIN =
Number=20
>>>>> Resource Policy Manual (NRPM),=20
>>>>> <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four11> -
>>>>>=20
>>>>> "4.1. General Principles 4.1.1. Routability Provider independent
>>>>> (portable) addresses issued directly from ARIN or other Regional=20=
>>>>> Registries are not guaranteed to be globally routable."
>>>>=20
>>>> While close, that is not the same.
>>>>=20
>>>> The RIPE variant solely guarantees uniqueness of the addresses.
>>>>=20
>>>> The ARIN variant states "we don't guarantee that you can route it=20=
>>>> everywhere", which is on top of the uniqueness portion.
>>>=20
>>> Agreed - I called it out because ARIN, like RIPE, does not assert =
that
>>> the address blocks issued are "publicly routable address space"=20
>>> (i.e. which was Tim Franklin's original statement, but he did not =
have
>>> on hand the comparable ARIN reference for that point.)
>>>=20
>>> FYI,
>>> /John
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
