mailing list archives
Re: De-bogon not possible via arin policy.
From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:21:19 -0500
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:43:05 -0500, Stephen Sprunk <stephen () sprunk org>
However, if they actually have the number of hosts claimed, that
justifies the space they're asking for. What addresses they're using
today is irrelevant. ARIN policy only /suggests/ that they use RFC 1918
space; they are allowed to get public space if they want it.
Except they've tipped their hand already. If they've been NAT'ing 5/8 for
who knows how long, it's clear they don't need public IPv4 space for their
network. However, getting public space is easier than building multiple
10/8 private islands. (or so they thought :-))
However, those customers seem to have gotten along okay for years
without public addresses, so why not renumber them into a second
instance of 10/8? When I was in the consulting world, I had one
customer with eight instances of 10/8, so I know it's doable.
And that's my entire point. Thus how they've failed to demonstrate a
legitimate need for what little IPv4 space is still available.
Maybe they (tmo) should get their european arm to ask RIPE for the entire
5/8 :-) (well, the 3/4th they haven't allocated yet.)
Re: De-bogon not possible via arin policy. Leo Bicknell (Dec 15)
Re: De-bogon not possible via arin policy. Scott Weeks (Dec 15)