nanog mailing list archives
Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
From: John Curran <jcurran () arin net>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 03:15:35 +0000
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:54 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
When there are X /8 networks reserved by the USG, it seems extremely wasteful to reserve from what little space we have a large block dedicated to LSN when the USG can give assurances that 1) We won't route this, so use it 2) We won't be giving it back or allocating it to someone else where it might be routed. All proposals concerning reserving a /8 of unallocated space for LSN purposes was seen as obscene, and many proposals compromised with a /10, which some feel is too small. I don't think it would hurt for someone with appropriate connections to ask the USG on the matter. It is, after all, in the USG's interest and doesn't conflict with their current practices. Many don't consider it a concern (shown by wide use of DoD space already deployed), yet some do apparently have concern since there has been multiple requests for a new allocation for LSN purposes (in the IETF and in RIRs).
Indeed, that does sound simple. Obtaining such a commitment may prove to be a little more difficult, since it permanently encumbers use of one or more address blocks. I am happy to ask, however, if there is a strong level of support to do so. Alternatively, there is valid contact information listed in WHOIS for US DOD and other commercial /8 address block holders if you wish to ask one directly. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN p.s. Considering that we've collectively allocated the 95%+ of the address space which was made available outside of DoD's original blocks, and the DoD additionally returned 2 more /8's for the community (noted here: <http://blog.icann.org/2008/02/recovering-ipv4-address-space/>), they may actually have a different perspective us coming back to impair some of the remaining space they still hold. I'm happy to discuss it, but wanted to point out the long history and potential different perspective.
Current thread:
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers, (continued)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers John Curran (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Jack Bates (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Jack Bates (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers John Curran (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Jack Bates (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers John Curran (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Jack Bates (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Jared Mauch (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Jack Bates (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Alexander Harrowell (Feb 11)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers John Curran (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Joel Jaeggli (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Jared Mauch (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Mark Andrews (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Robert Bonomi (Feb 10)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Benson Schliesser (Feb 05)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers John Curran (Feb 05)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Benson Schliesser (Feb 05)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Owen DeLong (Feb 05)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Owen DeLong (Feb 05)
- Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers Owen DeLong (Feb 05)