On Dec 15, 2011 10:35 PM, "Brielle Bruns" <br...@2mbit.com> wrote: > > On 12/15/11 3:31 PM, Ricky Beam wrote: >> >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:36:32 -0500, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> ... I had thought new allocations are based on demonstrated need. The >>> fact that addresses are in use would seem to suggest they're needed. >> >> >> That depends on how you see their "demontrated need." The way I look at >> it, if you build your network squatting on someone elses addresses, >> that's a problem of your own making and does not equate to any >> "immediate need" on my (channeling ARIN) part. This is a mess they >> created for themselves and should have known was going to bite them in >> the ass sooner than later. Translation: they should have started working >> to resolve this a long time ago. (or never done it in the first place.) >> >> And if I may say, they've demonstrated no need at all for public address >> space. They simply need to stop using 5/8 as if it were 10/8 -- i.e. >> they need more private address space. They don't need *public* IPv4 >> space for that. They will need to re-engineer their network to handle >> the addressing overlaps (ala NAT444.) >> > > > Heh, if this is about TMO, then they're squatting on alot more then just 5/8... My phone has an IP address in 22/8, and I've seen it get IPs in 25/8, 26/8 as well. > > I've always wondered what the deal was with the obviously squatted addresses that my device gets. > >
5/8 is not used for squat space in this case, somebody along this thread mentioned 5/8 as an example, not a data point. There's an effort to avoid squat space that appears in the dfz. Yes, that is a moving target. Cb > -- > Brielle Bruns > The Summit Open Source Development Group > http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org >