North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: IAB and "private" numbering

  • From: Tony Tauber
  • Date: Mon Nov 14 09:10:21 2005

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, [email protected] 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?

Is there a(nother) better venue than the IAB?
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.


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