|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Wasted space
In message <[email protected]>, Leo Bicknell writes: > >In a previous e-mail, Austin Schutz said: >> While importing netblock data I discovered what must be common >> knowledge for most. A large portion of allocated space is not being announce >d. >> Equally exciting was the discovery that a large portion of space is >> maintainer-free, thus making it essentially impossible to have an exact >> accounting of who has what. > > Who said you had to make your netblock visable to whatever >definition of "announced" you have to make it valid, and in use? > > Just because it doesn't show up on your favorite looking glass >doesn't mean no one is using it, or has a legitimate need for it. The definition of legitimate and need are both highly subjective. RFC 2050 states: In order for the Internet to scale using existing technologies, use of regional registry services should be limited to the assignment of IP addresses for organizations meeting one or more of the following conditions: 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. b) the organization is multi-homed with no favored connection. c) the organization's actual requirement for IP space is very large, for example, the network prefix required to cover the request is of length /18 or shorter. All other requestors should contact its ISP for address space or utilize the addresses reserved for non-connected networks described in RFC1918 until an Internet connection is established. Note that addresses issued directly from the IRs,(non-provider based), are the least likely to be routable across the Internet. Current registry policy indicates that it is NOT acceptable for organizations to request space that they do not plan to be routeable on the Internet. There is legacy space that has been issued under different policies and those policies are being review by the registries to see if/when/under what conidtions, those assingments would be revoked. I personally don't see much changing very soon but in 5 or 10 years who can say? If it is not publicly routeable then it is not in use on the public Internet. The regional registries are not in the business of managing private corporations "Intranets". So the issue of mergers is addressed. Renumbering is already a fact of life, so that isn't a reason. >From my recollection of studies done in 1996 the fast majority of space had a maintainer although there were some records from companies with incorrect contact information due to mergers and bankrupcies, etc. Out of the 400,000-500,000 entires I be curious to find out which ones and what percentage did not have maintainers. --- [email protected] Insync Internet, Inc. | Freeside Communications, Inc. 5555 San Felipe, Suite 700 | PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 713-407-7000 | 512-458-9810 http://www.insync.net | http://www.fc.net
|