North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8

  • From: Daniel Senie
  • Date: Sun Apr 15 22:40:05 2007

At 06:13 PM 4/15/2007, Jeroen Massar wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
>> We checked with IANA, ARIN, and the US DoD regarding 7.0.0.0/8.  We
>> were told that this netblock should not see the light of day,
>
> 10/8 used to be a DoD address block, but it was also used exclusively in
> their blacker networks and similar non-connected infrastructure. The
> result is that 10/8 was opened up for others to use as well. Could we do
> similar with 7/8?

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. For those networks it is much better to simply get
a block from their RIR and use that and never have collisions.

Set up a private allocation registry, and allocate chunks of 7/8 (or some other block that is generally available) to companies for a small annual fee. This would open up space for use in private networks that would then be sufficiently unique to cross-connect, merge or at least provide a bit of landing space for use as border addressing in organizations that are hopelessly over-using 10/8, 192.168/16 and 172.16/12 and need some space that's guaranteed unique for dealing with intercompany private interconnects, mergers or whatever.

I recall discussion of approaches with IPv6 to do something more intelligent in doling out private address space in ways that'd help limit conflicts. Why not make use of more DoD space to do something like this in IPv4?


Also note that Fastweb in Italy is already using 7.0.0.0/8 inside their
network for their customers, who sit behind a NAT.

Oh well, so much for using that block for a registry driven allocation system then. Any other blocks that could be used?


Greets,
 Jeroen