On 12/14/2011 11:14 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:47 PM, David Conrad<d...@virtualized.org> wrote:
[snip]
I'm confused. When justifying 'need' in an address allocation request, what difference
does it make>whether an address in use was allocated by an RIR or was squatted upon?
Last I heard, renumbering>out of (say) RFC 1918 space into public space was still a
justification for address space. Has this>changed?
It is a potential network change that could require additional address
space, if an operator plans a complete and immediate renumbering, but
the choice to renumber is not an automatic justification for the same
number of non-RFC1918 IPs as the count of IPs available in their
RFC1918 space networks.
I'm sure the RIRs are not allowing that.
A RFC1918 network is not a "normal" network; and this is not a
renumbering in the same manner as a renumbering from public IP space
to new public IP space.
The operator might have to show why they shouldn't renumber their 1918
network partially, over time, in a manner compatible with the RIR
policy for initial service provider allocations, instead of all at
once.
In other words: What is the technical justification that all those
rfc1918 addressed hosts suddenly need to be moved immediately, and
not over a normal allocation time frame for new public networks?
Here's a simple one involving "squat" space: You have a network that
internally is using *all* of 10.0.0.0/8 *and* 5.0.0.0/8 (because you
have enough customers to fill two /8s).
Now that 5.0.0.0/8 is being allocated, you need to move out of it (so
that your users can reach the real 5.0.0.0/8 sites).
Why wouldn't this be sufficient justification for a new /8 from ARIN?
Matthew Kaufman
