Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: De-bogon not possible via arin policy.
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:42:40 -0800

On 12/14/2011 11:14 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:47 PM, David Conrad<drc () virtualized org>  wrote:
I'm confused. When justifying 'need' in an address allocation request, what difference does it make>whether an address in use 
was allocated by an RIR or was squatted upon?  Last I heard, renumbering>out of (say) RFC 1918 space into public space was still a 
justification for address space.  Has this>changed?
It is a potential network change that could require additional address
space, if an operator plans a complete and immediate renumbering,  but
the choice to renumber is not an automatic justification for the same
number of  non-RFC1918 IPs   as the count of IPs available in their
RFC1918 space networks.
I'm sure the RIRs are not allowing that.

A RFC1918 network is not a "normal" network; and this is not a
renumbering in the same manner as a renumbering from public IP space
to new public IP space.

The operator might have to show why they shouldn't renumber their 1918
network partially, over time,  in a manner compatible with the RIR
policy for initial service provider allocations, instead of all at

In other words:   What is the technical justification that all those
rfc1918  addressed hosts suddenly need to be moved  immediately,   and
  not over a normal allocation time frame for new public networks?

Here's a simple one involving "squat" space: You have a network that internally is using *all* of *and* (because you have enough customers to fill two /8s).

Now that is being allocated, you need to move out of it (so that your users can reach the real sites).

Why wouldn't this be sufficient justification for a new /8 from ARIN?

Matthew Kaufman

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]