[ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9

[Jeff Urmann]

On Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:48 AM, George Cottay (cottay at qconline.com)
wrote:
>I'm confused by discussion here about needs for non-routed IP's other than
the present 10, 172, and 192 space already reserved.  Especially given the
size of the 10.0.0.0/8, I cannot for the life of me imagine an organization
needing more. Even if one were to divide on the basis of the old class C,
that leaves upwards of 65,000 possible subnets with which to play. 

I haven`t see the above mentioned here.

>I'm even more confused by mention of a need for public addresses that are
not routed.  I thought routing was the most significant difference between
public and private space. 

>Is anyone inclined to explain?

I believe I started this.  Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.
Let me try again...

I only mentioned non-routable to address the routing table size
limitations.  I thought I would lobby to get reserved space for that
if /24 allocations were not possible.

CompanyA and CompanyB, each having their own autonomy, are using private
IP addresses as described in RFC1918.  Both Companies are connected
independently to the internet via their ISP of choice with public space
provided by their ISP.  Both companies wish to connect to each other
directly (not through the internet).  Since there is a conflict in IP
addresses, NAT with public IP addresses is necessary.  CompanyB insists
that CompanyA use public address space (internet routable or otherwise;
neither Company cares).

CompanyA needs about 100 distinct public IP addresses (to start anyway).
To the best of my knowledge and experience, there is currently no way to
get a non-routable or routable public /24 to satisfy these requirements.
ISPs claim CompanyA cannot justify, based on ARIN policy, more address
space.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20021002/723f6c47/attachment.htm>