North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

  • From: Stephen Sprunk
  • Date: Tue Oct 18 16:54:15 2005

Thus spake <[email protected]>
E.g prevously
announced address-blocks that has disappeared from the global
routing-table for more than X months should go back to the RIR-pool
In RFC 2050 section 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.

Seems to me that the Internet routing table contents
past and present are irrelevant. Note also that the
so-called Internet routing table contents vary depending
on where you look at it.
Obviously if the RIRs contacted the folks responsible for a given block and were provided justification for its continued allocation, then it should not be reclaimed. On the other hand, folks sitting on several class Bs and not using them could have their blocks reclaimed trivially; ditto for companies that no longer exist. The last is certainly doable without much risk of controversy.

However, one of the articles referred to recently in this thread (I forget which) showed that even if we reclaimed all of the address space that is currently unannounced (in use or not), we'd buy ourselves a trivially short extension of the IPv4 address space exhaustion date. Considering the cost of performing the task, doing so seems rather pointless; our time would be better spent getting IPv6 deployed and either reengineering the routing system or switching to geo addresses.


Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin