mailing list archives
Re: De-bogon not possible via arin policy.
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 03:38:28 -0800
On Dec 15, 2011 10:35 PM, "Brielle Bruns" <bruns () 2mbit com> wrote:
On 12/15/11 3:31 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:36:32 -0500, David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>
... I had thought new allocations are based on demonstrated need. The
fact that addresses are in use would seem to suggest they're needed.
That depends on how you see their "demontrated need." The way I look at
it, if you build your network squatting on someone elses addresses,
that's a problem of your own making and does not equate to any
"immediate need" on my (channeling ARIN) part. This is a mess they
created for themselves and should have known was going to bite them in
the ass sooner than later. Translation: they should have started working
to resolve this a long time ago. (or never done it in the first place.)
And if I may say, they've demonstrated no need at all for public address
space. They simply need to stop using 5/8 as if it were 10/8 -- i.e.
they need more private address space. They don't need *public* IPv4
space for that. They will need to re-engineer their network to handle
the addressing overlaps (ala NAT444.)
Heh, if this is about TMO, then they're squatting on alot more then just
5/8... My phone has an IP address in 22/8, and I've seen it get IPs in
25/8, 26/8 as well.
I've always wondered what the deal was with the obviously squatted
addresses that my device gets.
5/8 is not used for squat space in this case, somebody along this thread
mentioned 5/8 as an example, not a data point. There's an effort to avoid
squat space that appears in the dfz. Yes, that is a moving target.
The Summit Open Source Development Group
http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
Re: De-bogon not possible via arin policy. Leo Bicknell (Dec 15)
Re: De-bogon not possible via arin policy. Scott Weeks (Dec 15)