[86677] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IAB and "private" numbering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Tauber)
Mon Nov 14 09:09:42 2005
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 06:09:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Tony Tauber <ttauber@1-4-5.net>
To: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <OFD9E2B2AF.43AE92E8-ON802570B9.003F6828-802570B9.003FB74E@btradianz.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
>
>> I'd like to see some acknowledgement that there are legitimate uses
>> of number resources that don't include "the public Internet".
>
> It's already there in RFC 2050:
Thanks for the reminder.
> 3 a) the organization has no intention of connecting to
> the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still
> requires a globally unique IP address. The organization
> should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918.
> If it is determined this is not possible, they can be
> issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses.
FWIW, I'd change s/routable/routed/g since all addresses are "routable".
Once I actually heard someone say "a Cisco won't even accept a 10 net
address". Not sure how that person thought all those addresses are
being used, then. Imagine Cisco cutting itself off from the lucrative
RFC1918 market...
>> Does this concern make sense?
>
> No.
>
>> Is there a(nother) better venue than the IAB?
>
> ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, LACNIC, AfriNIC, NRO
I just get concerned when hearing people (e.g. at the recent
ARIN/NANOG meeting) talking about reclaiming address-space or ASNs
based on lack of appearance in "Public".
I'm not saying that reclaimation shouldn't be pursued, but that it
should use other criteria or procedures.
Tony
> My company is one of several companies that operate
> IP networks that are not part of the public Internet but
> which do use globally unique registered IP addresses.
>
> --Michael Dillon
