While importing netblock data I discovered what must be common knowledge for most. A large portion of allocated space is not being announced. Equally exciting was the discovery that a large portion of space is maintainer-free, thus making it essentially impossible to have an exact accounting of who has what. IMO this seems much like those people who hoard domain names, except worse because ipv4 space is finite. Seems like we ought to drop these pointless allocations and make the owners justify space they use in the future. Networks using such space for internal use can use NAT if they ever decide to connect the The Internet. Austin
Equally exciting was the discovery that a large portion of space is maintainer-free
in the irr or (arin|ripe|apnic)? much of the the former thanks to sean and to baby peter. the latter should not be the case.
IMO this seems much like those people who hoard domain names, except worse because ipv4 space is finite.
domain names are finite. 254 char limit drawn from an 8-bit char set. randy
IMO this seems much like those people who hoard domain names, except worse because ipv4 space is finite.
domain names are finite. 254 char limit drawn from an 8-bit char set.
$ bc 256^254 49311837877366649323600580884811328064642490645928167773636391338386\ 00942820417921935608125537553934278674005267623599165972833122328326\ 58311281622107670335702985799671951234310153163915857728680359766210\ 69439038508288907840911493166867209378778336289339669574030006474132\ 65364309855012299736389026478635486131947843882498538312526670313197\ 24958132568898411896638150110768600863536200871492771279798342546336\ 76061407041110011837155687183077462622686306172536143846476937385117\ 82868915581833149250995402477804959206649465186461985527496130098804\ 49926596639031121858756000207590413184793166384097191709192063287296 256^4 4294967296 Austin
domain names are finite. 254 char limit drawn from an 8-bit char set. $ bc 256^254 49311837877366649323600580884811328064642490645928167773636391338386\ 00942820417921935608125537553934278674005267623599165972833122328326\ 58311281622107670335702985799671951234310153163915857728680359766210\ 69439038508288907840911493166867209378778336289339669574030006474132\ 65364309855012299736389026478635486131947843882498538312526670313197\ 24958132568898411896638150110768600863536200871492771279798342546336\ 76061407041110011837155687183077462622686306172536143846476937385117\ 82868915581833149250995402477804959206649465186461985527496130098804\ 49926596639031121858756000207590413184793166384097191709192063287296
256^4 4294967296
your point?
Maybe... but only if you can assign all 8-bit characters in domain names. Last time I checked, it was a significantly small subset of that which were truly valid. At 04:48 PM 4/29/99 -0700, Austin Schutz wrote:
your point?
It would be possible to assign names to every atom in the universe and still have some left over. Maybe not infinite but close enough :-)
Tex
Maybe... but only if you can assign all 8-bit characters in domain names. Last time I checked, it was a significantly small subset of that which were truly valid.
At 04:48 PM 4/29/99 -0700, Austin Schutz wrote:
your point?
It would be possible to assign names to every atom in the universe and still have some left over. Maybe not infinite but close enough :-)
Tex
Once, -very long ago- there existed the domain ~^S^P.rice.edu. Just to see if it could be done... :) 4.8.1 was a wonderful thing. Of course the memnonic value of same can be a bit hard to retain... --bill
In message <199904300412.VAA07247@vacation.karoshi.com>, bmanning@vacation.karo shi.com writes:
Maybe... but only if you can assign all 8-bit characters in domain names. Last time I checked, it was a significantly small subset of that which were truly valid.
At 04:48 PM 4/29/99 -0700, Austin Schutz wrote:
your point?
It would be possible to assign names to every atom in the universe and still have some left over. Maybe not infinite but close enough :-)
Tex
Once, -very long ago- there existed the domain ~^S^P.rice.edu. Just to see if it could be done... :) 4.8.1 was a wonderful thing.
Of course the memnonic value of same can be a bit hard to retain...
--bill
And of course the usefulness of DNS as a directory service is someone questionable when you do this. Personally I think if you want random bits for host identifiers IPv6 has enough to enumerate ever molecule in the know Universe. Obivously the severe weather has impacted the clue transport protocol's ablity to impart clue into some of the nanog posters in this thread. Looks like work for CLEW-D. --- jerry@fc.net Insync Internet, Inc. | Freeside Communications, Inc. 5555 San Felipe, Suite 700 | PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 713-407-7000 | 512-458-9810 http://www.insync.net | http://www.fc.net
So you trade dotted quad notation for a base36 number? That defeats the purpose of DNS. Your statement is meaningless, as your local dictionary will show. Randy is right, DNS is finite as well, albeit, constrained semantically, rather than mathematically.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Austin Schutz Sent: Thursday, April 29, 1999 4:48 PM To: Randy Bush Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Wasted space
your point?
It would be possible to assign names to every atom in the universe and still have some left over. Maybe not infinite but close enough :-)
Tex
On Thu, Apr 29, 1999 at 04:33:57PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
domain names are finite. 254 char limit drawn from an 8-bit char set. $ bc 256^254 49311837877366649323600580884811328064642490645928167773636391338386\ 00942820417921935608125537553934278674005267623599165972833122328326\ 58311281622107670335702985799671951234310153163915857728680359766210\ 69439038508288907840911493166867209378778336289339669574030006474132\ 65364309855012299736389026478635486131947843882498538312526670313197\ 24958132568898411896638150110768600863536200871492771279798342546336\ 76061407041110011837155687183077462622686306172536143846476937385117\ 82868915581833149250995402477804959206649465186461985527496130098804\ 49926596639031121858756000207590413184793166384097191709192063287296
256^4 4294967296
your point?
His point was fairly obvious to _me_, Randy: Yes, domain names are not truly "infinite", but they're much _less_ non-infinite than IP addresses. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Buy copies of The New Hackers Dictionary. The Suncoast Freenet Give them to all your friends. Tampa Bay, Florida http://www.ccil.org/jargon/ +1 813 790 7592
In a previous e-mail, Austin Schutz said:
While importing netblock data I discovered what must be common knowledge for most. A large portion of allocated space is not being announced. Equally exciting was the discovery that a large portion of space is maintainer-free, thus making it essentially impossible to have an exact accounting of who has what.
Who said you had to make your netblock visable to whatever definition of "announced" you have to make it valid, and in use? Just because it doesn't show up on your favorite looking glass doesn't mean no one is using it, or has a legitimate need for it. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
In message <199904300031.UAA06965@ussenterprise.ufp.org>, Leo Bicknell writes:
In a previous e-mail, Austin Schutz said:
While importing netblock data I discovered what must be common knowledge for most. A large portion of allocated space is not being announce d. Equally exciting was the discovery that a large portion of space is maintainer-free, thus making it essentially impossible to have an exact accounting of who has what.
Who said you had to make your netblock visable to whatever definition of "announced" you have to make it valid, and in use?
Just because it doesn't show up on your favorite looking glass doesn't mean no one is using it, or has a legitimate need for it.
The definition of legitimate and need are both highly subjective. RFC 2050 states: In order for the Internet to scale using existing technologies, use of regional registry services should be limited to the assignment of IP addresses for organizations meeting one or more of the following conditions: a) the organization has no intention of connecting to the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still requires a globally unique IP address. The organization should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918. If it is determined this is not possible, they can be issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses. b) the organization is multi-homed with no favored connection. c) the organization's actual requirement for IP space is very large, for example, the network prefix required to cover the request is of length /18 or shorter. All other requestors should contact its ISP for address space or utilize the addresses reserved for non-connected networks described in RFC1918 until an Internet connection is established. Note that addresses issued directly from the IRs,(non-provider based), are the least likely to be routable across the Internet. Current registry policy indicates that it is NOT acceptable for organizations to request space that they do not plan to be routeable on the Internet. There is legacy space that has been issued under different policies and those policies are being review by the registries to see if/when/under what conidtions, those assingments would be revoked. I personally don't see much changing very soon but in 5 or 10 years who can say? If it is not publicly routeable then it is not in use on the public Internet. The regional registries are not in the business of managing private corporations "Intranets". So the issue of mergers is addressed. Renumbering is already a fact of life, so that isn't a reason.
From my recollection of studies done in 1996 the fast majority of space had a maintainer although there were some records from companies with incorrect contact information due to mergers and bankrupcies, etc. Out of the 400,000-500,000 entires I be curious to find out which ones and what percentage did not have maintainers.
--- jerry@fc.net Insync Internet, Inc. | Freeside Communications, Inc. 5555 San Felipe, Suite 700 | PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 713-407-7000 | 512-458-9810 http://www.insync.net | http://www.fc.net
participants (8)
-
Austin Schutz -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Derek J. Balling -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Jeremy Porter -
Leo Bicknell -
Randy Bush -
Roeland M.J. Meyer