Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
It seems a poor reasons for acquiring a company, as they really do not "own" the address space. --Mike--
That is an interesting comment, has anyone ever heard of ARIN revoking IP's from a entity who no longer meets current ARIN criteria for a give size allocation? Or is it infact the case that once you get the IP space as long as you keep paying for it you get to keep it? in essence you do "own" it as long as you keep the capitalist portion of ARIN happy and pay your annual IP bills? (no offense to those ARIN workforce members among us). K mike harrison <meuon@higher To: "John K. Doyle, Jr." <John.Doyle@oracle.com> tech.net> cc: nanog@merit.edu Sent by: Subject: Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 owner-nanog@m erit.edu 04/09/2001 06:07 PM John said:
Well, you could acquire a company that already has one. :)
That has been the suggestion from several people. I've even considered it, especially when one of my local competitors has a /18, and they are much smaller than we are. We 'NAT' an incredible amount of dial-up and commercial customers to reduce our need for public IP's, and trends thankfully went to customers WANTING to be NAT'd and Proxied for 'firewall' reasons, with only a few public IP's. It seems a poor reasons for acquiring a company, as they really do not "own" the address space. --Mike--
Netname: HALLIBURTON Netblock: 34.0.0.0 - 34.255.255.255 I have a hunch Halliburton oil doesn't need 16 million ips.. I also have a hunch that they wont be getting revoked anytime soon ;) __ Matt Levine <matt@deliver3.com> "I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realized who was telling me this." -- Emo Phillips -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Kyle C. Bacon Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 6:21 PM To: mike harrison Cc: John K. Doyle, Jr.; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
It seems a poor reasons for acquiring a company, as they really do not "own" the address space. --Mike--
That is an interesting comment, has anyone ever heard of ARIN revoking IP's from a entity who no longer meets current ARIN criteria for a give size allocation? Or is it infact the case that once you get the IP space as long as you keep paying for it you get to keep it? in essence you do "own" it as long as you keep the capitalist portion of ARIN happy and pay your annual IP bills? (no offense to those ARIN workforce members among us). K mike harrison <meuon@higher To: "John K. Doyle, Jr." <John.Doyle@oracle.com> tech.net> cc: nanog@merit.edu Sent by: Subject: Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 owner-nanog@m erit.edu 04/09/2001 06:07 PM John said:
Well, you could acquire a company that already has one. :)
That has been the suggestion from several people. I've even considered it, especially when one of my local competitors has a /18, and they are much smaller than we are. We 'NAT' an incredible amount of dial-up and commercial customers to reduce our need for public IP's, and trends thankfully went to customers WANTING to be NAT'd and Proxied for 'firewall' reasons, with only a few public IP's. It seems a poor reasons for acquiring a company, as they really do not "own" the address space. --Mike--
Netname: HALLIBURTON Netblock: 34.0.0.0 - 34.255.255.255
I have a hunch Halliburton oil doesn't need 16 million ips.. I also have a hunch that they wont be getting revoked anytime soon ;)
Neither of the two listed servers for reverse DNS are answering for the zone. No BGP route is being advertised. If there ever was a better example of an allocation that should be revoked, I haven't seen it. DS
Netname: HALLIBURTON Netblock: 34.0.0.0 - 34.255.255.255
I have a hunch Halliburton oil doesn't need 16 million ips.. I also have a hunch that they wont be getting revoked anytime soon ;)
Neither of the two listed servers for reverse DNS are answering for the zone. No BGP route is being advertised. If there ever was a better example of an allocation that should be revoked, I haven't seen it.
Maybe after I get my paperwork done they'll assign me a 34... number? ROFL!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 06:41 PM 4/9/2001 -0400, Matt Levine wrote:
Netname: HALLIBURTON Netblock: 34.0.0.0 - 34.255.255.255
I have a hunch Halliburton oil doesn't need 16 million ips.. I also have a hunch that they wont be getting revoked anytime soon ;)
Maybe not, but woe betide them if they try to advertise anything longer than their full /8. Which might explain this:
route-views.oregon-ix.net>show ip bgp 34.0.0.0/8 longer-prefixes
route-views.oregon-ix.net>
Or why this is so short:
route-views.oregon-ix.net>show ip bgp 35.0.0.0/8 longer-prefixes | include _35\. * 35.0.0.0 203.181.248.242 0 7660 11537 237 i * 35.35.16.0/20 195.211.29.254 0 5409 6667 6427 1221 752 i * 35.35.144.0/20 203.62.248.4 0 1221 16779 1 701 6079 752 i * 35.35.176.0/20 195.211.29.254 0 5409 6667 6427 3356 7018 752 i
=== Bill Nickless http://www.mcs.anl.gov/people/nickless +1 630 252 7390 PGP:0E 0F 16 80 C5 B1 69 52 E1 44 1A A5 0E 1B 74 F7 nickless@mcs.anl.gov -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQCVAwUBOtJPNqwgm7ipJDXBAQFadQP/SH/IpypXyM9mJ3VP26gMi0m/Q+ReiTSJ AwP+imfU8ayFc/BiYlhhyZcmOOZyaBAkn4JhF6vcDJnHl3nhP17mu+41Kr8ipGeY UJaHs9mSH5HmvlN3HGLQkVZW/hf5V0bjlvrvIAlAan0KAmLgy4H3e0nf7PFiPSCf 43R3kd/ZVY8= =qhRZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (5)
-
Bill Nickless -
David Schwartz -
Kyle C. Bacon -
Matt Levine -
mike harrison