[36526] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Maxwell)
Tue Apr 10 08:42:55 2001
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:27:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>
To: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>
Cc: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <3AD23D35.3A09A418@ehsco.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1010410082437.27307B-100000@da1server>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Eric A. Hall wrote:
> > Actually, the last I heard is that they will sell down to a /24.
>
> No. See http://www.arin.net/regserv/feeschedule.html
>
> "The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN is a /20."
>
> Also, they don't have any special-case handling that I am aware of. I
> tried to get a private /24 to use for the topology examples in my books
> and couldn't get one. ARIN outright refused the request even though I
> could prove the need for it, and even though I didn't care about global
> routing or reachability.
>
> I was also told that any /24 that I might manage to acquire would be
> revoked instead of transferred to me.
>
> I honestly believe that ARIN is funded by stock ownership in NAT provder
> technologies. They are the primary reason that we have NAT and RFC 1918
> problems on the net everyday.
No, thats really not fair. I'm probably more of a NAT hater then most
people here, but I can't agree with that.
The reason they don't allocate /24's is because without aggregation the
Internet is not scalable. Perhaps they are being too agressive, but the
reasoning is sound.
