|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > Thus spake "Stephen J. Wilcox" <[email protected]> > > [Should non-routed addresses be revoked?] > > > > No, but they should be watched to see if they remain unrouted and then > > try to contact the owner.. > > There's already a project underway to reclaim unrouted allocations. > > > > There are companies that connect to thousands of other companies > > > (see the financial markets) that require unique addressing between > > > companies with non-colliding address ranges. 10.x.x.x doesn't quite > > > cut it. > > > > Why not? 16 million addresses arent enough? (and thats only 10/8) > > > > RFC1918 does suggest non-public intra-company networks use > > private space. > > N companies can have up to N(N-1) interconnections, which requires either: > a) double NAT, with a single address range for all interconnects > b) no NAT, with a unique address range for each interconnect > c) very careful management of the RFC1918 space such that no two companies > talking have a collision > d) globally unique addresses for each participant using RIRs > > (c) simply doesn't work in reality, (b) is no better than (d), and (a) is > beyond ugly not to mention incompatible with many apps. Only because everyone seems to use 10.0.0.x ... of course if you only followed the guidelines, rtfm! "If two (or more) organizations follow the address allocation specified in this document and then later wish to establish IP connectivity with each other, then there is a risk that address uniqueness would be violated. To minimize the risk it is strongly recommended that an organization using private IP addresses choose randomly from the reserved pool of private addresses, when allocating sub-blocks for its internal allocation." > Furthermore, ARIN emphatically claims they make no guarantees their > allocations are routable, nor do any of their policies or RFC2050 require > allocations be announced. Finally, ARIN has no policy authorizing > revocation of an allocation other than for nonpayment of fees; even failure > to meet efficiency requirements doesn't justify that. You're talking major > policy changes. I dont know the policies very well but are you sure they cant revoke dead allocations? For RIR assigned space I thought this was covered, so your issue was with the legacy pre-RIR swamp? And it cant be that big a deal to make legacy blocks fall into the new rules... Steve
|