In message <CAN3um4zGsbRL9K2snL0N6qDgP7RU_4dw_z1F0RQ3bnbr1H8eDA@mail.gmail.com>, M ike Hale writes:
"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?
Go back and re-read the entire thread. No one is arguing that unused resources shouldn't be returned. The problem is that people, including the person that started the petition that triggered this thread, have no idea about legitimate use that isn't visible on the publically visible routing tables. Routed => in use Not routed =/> not in use Mark
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Randy Bush <randy@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
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org