Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

On 2/10/11 6:54 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/10/2011 8:44 PM, John Curran wrote:
> > If you'd like to reserve a large block for purposes of LSN
> > without any concern of future address conflict, it would be
> > best to actually reserve it via community-developed policy.
>
> 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

reserved and assigned are different. The prefixes are assigned.

> 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).
>
>
> Jack