On Sep 18, 2012, at 21:11 , Mike Hale <eyeronic.des...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the > disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans." > > I'd love to hear the reasoning for this. Why would it be bad policy > to force companies to use the resources they are assigned or give them > back to the general pool? > Many of them _ARE_ using them, just not using them directly on the public internet. There is nothing wrong with that. As others have said... !announced != !used. Owen > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: >>> When IPv4 exhaustion pain reaches a sufficiently high level of pain; >>> there is a significant chance people who will be convinced that any >>> use of IPv4 which does not involve announcing and routing the address >>> space on the internet is a "Non-Use" of IPv4 addresses, >>> >>> and that that particular point of view will prevail over the concept >>> and convenience of being allowed to maintain unique registration for >>> non-connected usage. >>> >>> And perception that those addresses are up for grabs, either for using >>> on RFC1918 networks for NAT, or for insisting that internet registry >>> allocations be recalled and those resources put towards use by >>> connected networks...... >>> >>> If you do have such an unconnected network, it may be prudent to have >>> a connected network as well, and announce all your space anyways (just >>> not route the addresses) >> >> this is the arin vigilante cultural view of the world. luckily, the >> disease does not propagate sufficiently to cross oceans. >> >> randy >> > > > > -- > 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0