[158893] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Advisory =?utf-8?B?4oCUIEQtcm9v?=
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Fri Dec 14 15:03:17 2012
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:01:27 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
In-Reply-To: <17005711.38755.1355514409227.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:46:49PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
>
> > > So, in short, UMD will still own the losing allocation, and be able
> > > to make
> > > relatively sure nothing else is placed at that IP (though of course
> > > they
> > > won't necessarily be able to make sure no one hijacks that entire
> > > prefix --
> > > does Renesys have a pay-special-attention list?)
> >
> > But how do you know the Renesys allocations haven't been hijacked??
>
> I know you're being a smartass, Bill, but you're right: I assume Renesys
> has made provisions for that, but I don't know what they are.
>
> No doubt they'll pop in and post a link to a blog post they wrote 5 years
> ago which explains. ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
the smart-ass answer to the nagging question on prefix reuse
is:
"Top Men are working on it"
A more reasoned (maybe) response might be:
To my knowledge, there is tension between creating "golden" addresses
and address flexablity/reuse. I'd really like to swing back toward
address flexability/reuse, but there is a whole lot of inertia behind
the "golden" address crowd.
Of the six renumbering events that come to mind, four of the prefixes
are sequestered. The two that are not were in net 10. I am unaware of
-anyone- who still points at the old addresses in net 10 space.
I think there were other renumbering events, but have not kept track
of the old prefix use.
/bill
