On 2/10/11 6:54 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/10/2011 8:44 PM, John Curran wrote:
If you'd like to reserve a large block for purposes of LSN without any concern of future address conflict, it would be best to actually reserve it via community-developed policy.
When there are X /8 networks reserved by the USG, it seems extremely wasteful to reserve from what little space we have a large block dedicated to LSN when the USG can give assurances that
reserved and assigned are different. The prefixes are assigned.
1) We won't route this, so use it
2) We won't be giving it back or allocating it to someone else where it might be routed.
All proposals concerning reserving a /8 of unallocated space for LSN purposes was seen as obscene, and many proposals compromised with a /10, which some feel is too small. I don't think it would hurt for someone with appropriate connections to ask the USG on the matter. It is, after all, in the USG's interest and doesn't conflict with their current practices. Many don't consider it a concern (shown by wide use of DoD space already deployed), yet some do apparently have concern since there has been multiple requests for a new allocation for LSN purposes (in the IETF and in RIRs).
Jack