Re: The Department of Work and Pensions, UK has an entire /8

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Sep 18, 2012, at 21:11 , Mike Hale <eyeronic.design () gmail com> wrote:

> "this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world.  luckily, the
> disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans."
>
> I'd love to hear the reasoning for this.  Why would it be bad policy
> to force companies to use the resources they are assigned or give them
> back to the general pool?

Many of them _ARE_ using them, just not using them directly on the public
internet. There is nothing wrong with that.

As others have said... !announced != !used.

Owen

> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:
> > > When IPv4 exhaustion pain reaches a sufficiently high level of pain;
> > > there is a significant chance people who will be convinced that any
> > > use of IPv4 which does not involve  announcing and  routing the address
> > > space on the internet is a "Non-Use" of IPv4 addresses,
> > >
> > > and that that particular point of view will prevail over the concept
> > > and convenience of being allowed to maintain unique registration for
> > > non-connected usage.
> > >
> > > And perception that those addresses are up for grabs, either for using
> > > on RFC1918 networks for NAT, or for insisting that internet registry
> > > allocations be recalled and those resources put towards use by
> > > connected networks......
> > >
> > > If you do have such an unconnected network, it may be prudent to have
> > > a connected network as well, and announce all your space anyways (just
> > > not route the addresses)
> >
> > this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world.  luckily, the
> > disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans.
> >
> > randy
>
>
>
> -- 
> 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0