I just checked all those /8's none of them are in the table. -jim Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network -----Original Message----- From: Michael Dillon <wavetossed@googlemail.com> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:39:07 To: Lee Howard<lee@asgard.org> Cc: <nanog@nanog.org>; Todd Underwood<toddunder@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Todd Underwood was a little late " "Registered but unrouted" would include space that is in use in large
private networks that aren't visible from your standard sources for route views, such as U.S. DoD (6, 11, 22, 26, 28, 29, 30 /8) or U.K. MoD (25/8).
Have you verified each of these address ranges or are you just a mindless robot repeating urban legends? By your definition, there is an awful lot more "registered but unrouted" space and researchers have been reporting on this for 10 years or more. In order to correctly identify what you think you are talking about, you need to take into account the date a range was registered and the date that you scanned the data. If the difference between the two dates is less than some small number, say one year, then it is probably routed space which has not yet been routed but soon will be. Different people will want to set that breakpoint at different timescales for obvious reasons. I encourage someone to do the work to list all such ranges along with the dates, and supply them as a feed, like Cymru does. Best would be to allow the feed recipient to filter based on age of block.
I've heard that some organizations are growing beyond rfc1918 space
Many organizations have grown beyond RFC 1918 space. The first ones that made it known publicly were cable companies about 15 years ago. And lets not forget that RFC 1597 and 1918 were relatively recent inventions. Before that, many organizations did "adopt" large chunks of class A space. One that I know of used everything from 1/8 to 8/8 and there were multiple disjoint instances of 1/8 in their many global networks. People have been building global networks with X.25 and frame relay transport layers for a lot longer than many realize. And the Internet did not become larger than these private networks until sometime in 1999 or so.
and starting to use addresses like these already (for devices not capable of IPv6) for internal networking (not publically routed). I believe this is generally considered bad citizenship, but I'm interested in why?
Stupidity. Many people have no historical perspective and think that the only users of I{P address space that matter are ISPs. I don't consider it bad citizenship if the "adopted" space is not routed publicly, and even the definition of "publicly" is hard to pin down. If someone wants to route such space to a 100 or so ASNs in Russia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and China, then I don't think that they are blatantly being bad Internet citizens. Particularly if they carefully chose whose addresses to "adopt".
Is there a range most people camp on?
No. And it would be dumb to do that. Smarter is to use some range that nobody else is known to be camping on except the registrant and their network is geographically distant from yours. --Michael Dillon P.S. At this point, the IPv6 transition has failed, unlike the Y2K transition, and some level of crisis is unavoidable. In desperate times, people take desparate measures, and "adopting" IP address ranges that are not used by others in your locality seems a reasonable thing to do when economic survival is at stake. P.P.S. I saw a report that someone, somewhere, had analysed some data which indicates that IP address allocation rates are increasing and there is a real possibility that we will runout by the end of this year, 2010. Does anyone know where I can find the actual analysis that led to this report?