On Feb 9, 2011, at 4:35 AM, Sam Stickland wrote:
>
>
> On 9 Feb 2011, at 02:43, "R. Benjamin Kessler"
> wrote:
>
From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herb...@gmail.com]
>>
"Let's just grab 2/8, it's not routed on the Internet..."
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I was consulting for a financial s
On 2/9/11 4:35 AM, Sam Stickland wrote:
>
>
> On 9 Feb 2011, at 02:43, "R. Benjamin Kessler"
> wrote:
>
From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herb...@gmail.com]
>>
"Let's just grab 2/8, it's not routed on the Internet..."
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I was consulting for a financial services firm
On 9 Feb 2011, at 02:43, "R. Benjamin Kessler" wrote:
>>> From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herb...@gmail.com]
>
>>> "Let's just grab 2/8, it's not routed on the Internet..."
>
> +1
>
> I was consulting for a financial services firm in the late '90s that was
> acquired by a large east-co
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 6:54 PM, David Barak wrote:
>
>
>>From: R. Benjamin Kessler
>
>>>From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herb...@gmail.com]
>
>>>"Let's just grab 2/8, it's not routed on the Internet..."
>
>>+1
>
>>I was consulting for a financial services firm in the late '90s that was
>>acqui
>From: R. Benjamin Kessler
>>From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herb...@gmail.com]
>>"Let's just grab 2/8, it's not routed on the Internet..."
>+1
>I was consulting for a financial services firm in the late '90s that was
>acquired by a large east-coast bank; the bank's brilliant scheme >
>>From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herb...@gmail.com]
>>"Let's just grab 2/8, it's not routed on the Internet..."
+1
I was consulting for a financial services firm in the late '90s that was
acquired by a large east-coast bank; the bank's brilliant scheme was to
renumber all new acquisition
On Feb 8, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Lynda wrote:
> On 2/8/2011 2:46 PM, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>>> Before arin etc it was possible to request ip space and on the
>>> form specify you would not be connecting to the Internet.
>>
>> So those off net users can't complain if ARIN allocated the
>> same ra
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:08 PM, wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 14:59:12 PST, George Herbert said:
>
>> It's easy to say "Well, foo on them", but for those of us who provide
>> services or consulting to those who failed to follow the directions,
>> we still have to deal with it.
>
> Just remember th
On 2/8/2011 2:46 PM, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
Before arin etc it was possible to request ip space and on the
form specify you would not be connecting to the Internet.
So those off net users can't complain if ARIN allocated the
same ranges on net. Not that it's worth doing so now.
I hoped I
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 14:59:12 PST, George Herbert said:
> It's easy to say "Well, foo on them", but for those of us who provide
> services or consulting to those who failed to follow the directions,
> we still have to deal with it.
Just remember that if they *had* followed the directions, your
bil
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> I wish people would actually read RFC 1918.
>
> Category 1: hosts that do not require access to hosts in other
> enterprises or the Internet at large; hosts within
> this category may use IP addresses th
> Before arin etc it was possible to request ip space and on the
> form specify you would not be connecting to the Internet.
So those off net users can't complain if ARIN allocated the
same ranges on net. Not that it's worth doing so now.
V6, drive fast.
brandon
I wish people would actually read RFC 1918.
Category 1: hosts that do not require access to hosts in other
enterprises or the Internet at large; hosts within
this category may use IP addresses that are
unambiguous within an enterprise, b
On 2/8/2011 7:25 AM, Sam Stickland wrote:
I've worked in plenty of places where registered address was used on private
interconnections between organisations to avoid overlaps, but never announced
globally.
There's no such thing as "globally" anyway.
Your view of the Internet routing table !=
I've worked in plenty of places where registered address was used on private
interconnections between organisations to avoid overlaps, but never announced
globally.
S
On 8 Feb 2011, at 14:35, gb10hkzo-na...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> Hint: even IPs not pingable from the Internet are being used. Not
Before arin etc it was possible to request ip space and on the form specify you
would not be connecting to the Internet.
Jared Mauch
On Feb 8, 2011, at 9:35 AM, gb10hkzo-na...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> Hint: even IPs not pingable from the Internet are being used. Not
>> everyone is an ISP/Webhost
> Hint: even IPs not pingable from the Internet are being used. Not
> everyone is an ISP/Webhoster ... with public services.
I thought that was why we have RFC1918 ?
> -Original Message-
> From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com]
>
> The most important thing to ensure "usage" is recognized is that the
> entire address space is announced plus routed,
I don't speak on behalf of a community, but in the past there have
been people reminding the ARIN
Hi,
> If you are using your block, why would you worry?
>
> If not are not using your block, why would you need it?
You may define "using"
Hint: even IPs not pingable from the Internet are being used. Not
everyone is an ISP/Webhoster ... with public services.
--
Viele Grüße / Kind Regards / C
- Original Message -
> From: "Jimmy Hess"
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Daniel Seagraves
> wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> > How many addresses do I have to be using for it to count as in use?
> > How high will that number go in the next few mont
On Feb 4, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
>> I'm a little confused. Sounds like the things you are talking about all
>> fall into the "if you are using your block" category, so he shouldn't worry.
>>
>> ARIN should not rec
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Daniel Seagraves
wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> How many addresses do I have to be using for it to count as in use? How high
> will that number go in the next few months/years?
The most important thing to ensure "usage" is recogn
On Feb 4, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Heinrich Strauss wrote:
> Hi, NANOG.
>
> Something's just struck me: every IPv4 allocation over a certain threshold
> has a monetary cost (sometimes in the tens of thousands of USD) and according
> to our RIR, the first equivalent IPv6 allocation is given as a free
> ARIN might decide that since we're ineligible for an allocation under
> the current rules, we're no longer eligible to maintain the space we
> have, and take it away from us.
ARIN don't know that
> As the remaining space gets smaller, I expect that the number needed
> to justify keeping my addr
On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> I'm a little confused. Sounds like the things you are talking about all fall
> into the "if you are using your block" category, so he shouldn't worry.
>
> ARIN should not reclaim a block that is in use. Unless I am confused?
> (Happens
On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
>>> On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>>>
No, and in fact, I believe all the RIRs will probably do a reasonably
br
On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:41 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>>
>>> No, and in fact, I believe all the RIRs will probably do a reasonably brisk
>>> business in reclamation and reallocation, albeit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>> No, and in fact, I believe all the RIRs will probably do a reasonably brisk
>> business in reclamation and reallocation, albeit in ever smaller blocks.
On Feb 4, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Daniel Seag
On Feb 4, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>> No, and in fact, I believe all the RIRs will probably do a reasonably brisk
>> business in reclamation and reallocation, albeit in ever smaller blocks.
>
> As holder of a small block, thi
On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> No, and in fact, I believe all the RIRs will probably do a reasonably brisk
> business in reclamation and reallocation, albeit in ever smaller blocks.
As holder of a small block, this scares and irritates me. It scares me that I
might lose my
On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:47 PM, Heinrich Strauss wrote:
>> So once the "early" adopters migrate their networks to IPv6, there is no
>> business need to maintain the IPv4 allocation and that will be returned to
>> the free pool, since Business would see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 4, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Heinrich Strauss wrote:
> So once the "early" adopters migrate their networks to IPv6, there is no
> business need to maintain the IPv4 allocation and that will be returned to
> the free pool, since Business would see it
On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:47 PM, Heinrich Strauss wrote:
> So once the "early" adopters migrate their networks to IPv6, there is no
> business need to maintain the IPv4 allocation and that will be returned to
> the free pool, since Business would see it as an unnecessary cost.
Interesting reasoning
Hi, NANOG.
Something's just struck me: every IPv4 allocation over a certain
threshold has a monetary cost (sometimes in the tens of thousands of
USD) and according to our RIR, the first equivalent IPv6 allocation is
given as a freebie (to encourage migration). (Disclaimer: I'm on the
Dark Con
34 matches
Mail list logo
