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
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, David Conrad wrote:
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
On 12/15/2011 09:07, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
I tend to think of squatting in the sense of using a resource (could be an
IP address block, could be an empty house, could be just about anything)
that the person who is using it does not have permission to do so. I
would think that
On 12/14/2011 11:14 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:47 PM, David Conradd...@virtualized.org wrote:
[snip]
I'm confused. When justifying 'need' in an address allocation request, what difference
does it makewhether an address in use was allocated by an RIR or was squatted upon?
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:42:40 PST, Matthew Kaufman said:
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
Jimmy,
On Dec 14, 2011, at 11:14 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
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.
I'll admit I haven't been following ARIN policy making for some time. Can you
On Dec 15, 2011, at 6:07 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, David Conrad wrote:
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,
In a message written on Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 01:15:48PM -0800, Cameron Byrne
wrote:
But all I can qualify for is a /18, and then in 3 months maybe a /17. This
is called slow start ? For an established business?
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four216
You should be able to get a /16
On 12/15/2011 8:05 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:42:40 PST, Matthew Kaufman said:
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
--- br...@bryanfields.net wrote:
From: Bryan Fields br...@bryanfields.net
Now this gets a lot more fun as we get closer to true IPv4 exhaustion. If
there is a business case between two or more providers to side step a RIR
process and recognize IP allocations that the RIR does not, who really
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 12/15/2011 8:05 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:42:40 PST, Matthew Kaufman said:
Here's a simple one involving squat space: You have a network that
internally is using *all* of 10.0.0.0/8
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:42:40 -0500, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at
wrote:
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?
Because it's not
On Dec 15, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
Because it's not ARIN's job to clean up someone else's stupid.
ARIN's job (well, beyond the world travel, publishing comic books, handing out
raffle prizes, etc.) is to allocate and register addresses according to
community-defined documented
In a message written on Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 01:36:32PM -0800, David Conrad
wrote:
ARIN's job (well, beyond the world travel, publishing comic books, handing
out raffle prizes, etc.) is to allocate and register addresses according to
community-defined documented policies. I had thought new
On 12/15/11 13:43 , Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 01:36:32PM -0800, David Conrad
wrote:
ARIN's job (well, beyond the world travel, publishing comic books, handing
out raffle prizes, etc.) is to allocate and register addresses according to
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
We know rather alot about the original posters' business, it has ~34
million wireless subscribers in north america. I think it's safe to
assume that adequate docuementation could be provided.
I missed the post where he
On 15-Dec-11 15:54, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 12/15/11 13:43 , Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 01:36:32PM -0800, David Conrad
wrote:
ARIN's job (well, beyond the world travel, publishing comic books, handing
out raffle prizes, etc.) is to allocate and register
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,
In a message written on Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 01:54:28PM -0800, Joel jaeggli
wrote:
We know rather alot about the original posters' business, it has ~34
million wireless subscribers in north america. I think it's safe to
assume that adequate docuementation could be provided.
As I suspect there
On 12/15/2011 2:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
It would only take a couple of these sorts of requests and the free
pool is gone.
Personally, I can't wait.
Matthew Kaufman
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:32:17 PST, Leo Bicknell said:
80% effiency that would require ~2.5 /8's worth of space. It would only
take a couple of these sorts of requests and the free pool is gone.
/me makes some popcorn. This could be fun.
pgpCZOCgqbO2T.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 12/15/11 14:12 , Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
We know rather alot about the original posters' business, it has ~34
million wireless subscribers in north america. I think it's safe to
assume that adequate docuementation could be
On 15-Dec-11 16:31, 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
On Dec 15, 2011 6:43 PM, Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org wrote:
On 15-Dec-11 16:31, 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
In a message written on Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 04:59:15PM -0800, Cameron Byrne
wrote:
Regarding this thread in general, I asked a question about slow start and
got a good answer about immediate need. Thanks !
Note that the slow-start is not based on size (as far as I can
remember) but on
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:43:05 -0500, Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
wrote:
However, if they actually have the number of hosts claimed, that
justifies the space they're asking for. What addresses they're using
today is irrelevant. ARIN policy only /suggests/ that they use RFC 1918
space;
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
Fyi, I just was rejected from arin for an ipv4 allocation. I demonstrated I
own ~100k ipv4 addresses today.
My customers use over 10 million bogon / squat space ip addresses today,
and I have good attested data on that.
But all I can qualify for is a /18, and then in 3 months maybe a /17. This
Fyi, I just was rejected from arin for an ipv4 allocation. I demonstrated I
own ~100k ipv4 addresses today.
My customers use over 10 million bogon / squat space ip addresses today,
and I have good attested data on that.
But all I can qualify for is a /18, and then in 3 months maybe a /17.
On 12/14/2011 4:20 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
You should easily qualify for a /32 or larger IPv6 block.
And it's curious that errors that are likely to be there for decades
are just now trying to be fixed as IPv4 pool is depleted, isn't it ?
His users can also switch to DECNET and reach about as
What do you mean by de-bogon? Do you mean that your customers'
addresses are listed in various RBLs for previous misbehavior? That
they are using addresses that were never properly allocated to them?
Something different?
You don't own IPv4 addresses; they are assigned or allocated to you
in
On Dec 14, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Just fyi, de-bogoning , or private rfc 1918 is not really an option even
with strong and consistent demonstrate load.
Any suggestions on how to navigate this policy ?
Given unmet demand, I'd think the solution would be fairly obvious (albeit
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Fyi, I just was rejected from arin for an ipv4 allocation. I demonstrated I
own ~100k ipv4 addresses today.
My customers use over 10 million bogon / squat space ip addresses today,
and I have good attested data on that.
On 12/14/11 18:46 , Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Fyi, I just was rejected from arin for an ipv4 allocation. I demonstrated I
own ~100k ipv4 addresses today.
My customers use over 10 million bogon / squat space ip addresses today,
On Dec 14, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote
Wait... you had started using bogon addresses / squatted space not
allocated and claimed the number of IP addresses your network is using that
were not
allocated by a RIR settles the need justification question?
I'm confused. When justifying
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)
I'm also aware of at least one network that has consumed all private address
space, perhaps even including the testing /15 as well.
If you are using a /8 /12 and /16 in total, ones future life could be very
interesting. Almost makes the case for v6 easier at their site. I'm hoping we
see 2012
37 matches
Mail list logo
