[96065] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (michael.dillon@bt.com)
Sun Apr 15 18:36:53 2007
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:25:58 +0100
In-Reply-To: <4622A375.6010607@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com>
From: <michael.dillon@bt.com>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> > 10/8 used to be a DoD address block, but it was also used=20
> exclusively in
> > their blacker networks and similar non-connected infrastructure. The
> > result is that 10/8 was opened up for others to use as=20
> well. Could we do
> > similar with 7/8?
>=20
> What problem would that solve instead of reducing a wee tiny bit the
> collisions that might occur? Large networks are currently already
> established and renumbering them from 10.0.0.0/8 to 7.0.0.0/8 would
> still be renumbering.=20
Renumbering? Was somebody discussing renumbering?
The problem that releasing 7/8 would solve is that IANA could allocate
it to an RIR and the RIR could allocate it to customers. Given the
finite nature of the IPv4 space, it is a bad thing to lock away address
blocks that could be used by others.
> Also note that Fastweb in Italy is already using 7.0.0.0/8=20
> inside their
> network for their customers, who sit behind a NAT.
And I know a company that has been using 1/8, 2/8, 3/8, 4/8, 5/8, 6/8,
7/8 and 8/8 for many years, also behind NAT or on non-Internet connected
networks. But that is not what I am talking about here.
In fact, I would like to see a mechanism where large address blocks used
primarily in a single geographic area, are made available for reuse in
other geographic areas. This would extend the lifetime of IPv4.
--Michael Dillon
