nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
From: Cutler James R <james.cutler () consultant com>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 08:31:23 -0500
On Feb 10, 2011, at 12:15 AM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:42:14 -0500, Nathan Eisenberg <nathan () atlasnetworks us> wrote:What do you mean, lit up? You mean they're not in the routing tables that you get from your carriers? I'd argue that's no indication of whether they're in use or not.That's pretty much the definition of "in use". If they don't appear in the global routing table, then they aren't being used. I cannot send traffic to them; they cannot send traffic to me. In my recent probe of route servers, I found 22 legacy /8's that were partly or completely unused. I'm a little surprised ARIN/ICANN thinks it's a waste of time to even try to reclaim them. --Ricky
This dead horse keep coming back for another beating. The purpose of a global registry of numbers is to provide a common source for unique numbers. The definition of "in use" by internet registries does not require appearance in your routing tables or even in the route servers. Not only that, the "users" may not even want or need to exchange traffic with you. As a survivor of many network consolidations due to corporate acquisitions, I have many scars from trying to get separate RFC 1918 islands to interwork properly. That is the reason that even so-called private networks need unique IP addressing. And now, since IPv6 is actually being deployed and used, there is absolutely no economic incentive to continue to fight the "IPv4 addresses not in my routing table are not 'in use'" battle any more. It is a waste of time and money. James R. Cutler james.cutler () consultant com
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer..., (continued)
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... Joel Jaeggli (Feb 09)
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... Ricky Beam (Feb 09)
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... Jason Fesler (Feb 09)
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... Mark Andrews (Feb 09)
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 09)
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 09)
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... Owen DeLong (Feb 09)
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... Ricky Beam (Feb 10)
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... David Conrad (Feb 10)
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... Henk Uijterwaal (Feb 10)
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... Cutler James R (Feb 10)
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... Joel Jaeggli (Feb 10)
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... Matthew Kaufman (Feb 10)
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... Ricky Beam (Feb 10)
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... Jack Bates (Feb 10)
- RE: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... George Bonser (Feb 10)
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... Scott Helms (Feb 11)
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... Alexander Harrowell (Feb 11)
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... Ricky Beam (Feb 11)
- RE: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... George Bonser (Feb 11)
- Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer... Ricky Beam (Feb 11)