[171539] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rob Seastrom)
Mon May 5 15:42:16 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
From: Rob Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 15:42:04 -0400
In-Reply-To: <m2bnvejf4y.wl%randy@psg.com> (Randy Bush's message of "Sun,
04 May 2014 07:18:21 +0200")
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> writes:
>> Ah, so you're in the camp that a /10 given to one organization for
>> their private use would have been better than reserving that /10 for
>> _everyone_ to use. We'll have to agree to disagree there.
>
> you forced an rfc allocation. that makes public space, and is and will
> be used as such. you wanted an 'owned' allocation that you and your
> friends control, you shoulda gone to the rirs.
Usually I manage to keep the Strangelove hand in check and not feed
the troll, but the matter was raised (at least in the ARIN region).
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_5.html
I believe that the arguments that shared transition space were IETF's
purview were compelling. I'm no fan of non-globally-unique space in
general, but forcing the RFC route was the least-worst route for
things to move forward.
Randy, I trust that you're also vigorously advocating people's use of
UK-MOD-19850128 (aka net 25) as "just more 1918 space" inside their
organizations too? After all, it's what I encourage *my* competitors to do.
-r
