[arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20

[Robert E. Seastrom]

Steve Wagner <stwagner at syringanetworks.net> writes:

> As a note it's not just the /8's. I am in Idaho.  The State of Idaho
> has a Class B 164.165.0.0 All State government activities sit behind
> two different firewalls.
> ...
>
> In this regard by reclaiming this address space that companies have,
> particularly when the coropration sits behind NAT firewalls is
> unjustified.

Having used the Internet from an Idaho Fish & Game building where we
were teaching as guests, I can assure you that the entire state is not
behind one enormous NAT or even several - I got a public IP address in
response to my DHCP request.

Do not confuse firewalls and NAT.  The functionality is often found in
the same box, but they are no more similar than an FM radio and a tape
player (which was once upon a time, anyway, often found in the same
box too).  Firewalls implement policy about who can talk to whom,
whilst NAT/PAT devices implement a hack that many say is contrary to
the end-to-end nature of TCP/IP as it was designed.  Not entirely bad,
since it's what kept us from running out of IPv4 addresses in 1999...

Anyway, sample size of one.  I'm sure that most of the organizations
who have /16s are actually using them internally rather than using
1918 space.  It just makes good sense to maximize your ability to
interconnect with partner organizations (or solve an M&A nightmare if
you are in the private sector) by using globally unique addresses if
you've got 'em.

ARIN's policy is neutral on the use of NAT/PAT or any other networking
technology.  If you believe this ought to change, go to
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_appendix_b.html
and write it up!

Cheers,

-r