mailing list archives
Re: De-bogon not possible via arin policy.
From: David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:24:10 -0800
On Dec 15, 2011, at 6:07 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, David Conrad 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?
I tend to think of squatting in the sense of using a resource (could be an IP address block, could be an empty house,
could be just about anything) that the person who is using it does not have permission to do so.
Right, but how does that impact whether or not non-squat space is justified? From my perspective, the actual bit
patterns associated with an address in use shouldn't have any impact on the whether or not it is deemed by our ARIN
overlords to be needed to be in use.
Re: De-bogon not possible via arin policy. Leo Bicknell (Dec 15)
Re: De-bogon not possible via arin policy. Scott Weeks (Dec 15)