[arin-discuss] use of 128.66.0.0/16 not clear

[jlewis at atlantic.net]

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

>> I think that now is NOT the time to be expanding the wasted IPv4
>> address space.  This block should be documented for it's prior
>> misuse in examples.  That use should be deprecated, and, the block
>> should be placed in the free pool.
>
> I respectfully disagree.  That sounds like a great idea right up until
> *your* organization becomes the lucky folks who get assigned it, and
> given this sentiment:

When we get to that point, I'd happily take a block from 128.66.0.0/16 vs 
being told by ARIN "Sorry, we don't have any more IPv4."

> The question boils down to "will adding 2^16 addresses to the free
> pool be worth the heartburn that will result from using an address
> block that is so-tainted and appears in a lot of filters?"

Do we really know how tainted it is?  Any worse than all the old "bogons" 
that were in so many filters several years ago?  Many of us survived being 
allocated space from 69/8 and others, despite all the books and web pages 
that told people it'd be a good idea to put those in their internet facing 
ACLs or BGP route filters.

I'd be more worried about getting a block of widely blacklisted ex-spammer 
space than a slice of 128.66.0.0/16.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jon Lewis <jlewis at atlantic.net>|
  Senior Network Engineer        |
  Atlantic.net                   |
________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key__________