Re: De-bogon not possible via arin policy.

["Ricky Beam" <jfbeam () gmail com>]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:36:32 -0500, David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>  
wrote:
> ... 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.)