[ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd)

[Mury]

Are you saying that "they" are claiming the need for private non-routable
/24's is in case of a merger?

Nobody can be that silly, can they?


On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote:

> 
> The argument I've always heard is "Company A is using 192.168.1.0 and so is
> Company B".  But one or the other company would have to renumber,
> regardless, so it hardly seems to matter if Company B renumbers to
> 192.168.2.0 (or 10.10.10.10 for that matter), or if they renumber to some
> non-routed block of "public" IP space.
> 
> I have to weigh in and agree that the "quick fix" idea of handing out /24's
> is short-sighted and disregards what has happened in the past.
> 
> Kevin
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from Mury -----
> 
> >From owner-ppml at arin.net Wed Oct 02 17:18:31 2002
> Delivered-To: sigma at smx.pair.com
> X-Envelope-To: sigma at smx.pair.com
> Delivered-To: sigma at pair.com
> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:14:23 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Mury <mury at goldengate.net>
> To: George Cottay <cottay at qconline.com>
> cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9
> In-Reply-To: <001101c26a33$68f22050$020d010a at cottay>
> Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.21.0210021211110.13738-100000 at dew.goldengate.net>
> Sender: owner-ppml at arin.net
> Precedence: bulk
> 
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> The only reasons I can think of that someone would want private
> (non-public) but yet non-routable space would be for uses not
> Internet/LAN/WAN related.  And that isn't our problem, nor ARIN's
> responsibility.
> 
> But I've been accused of being a slow-thinker before, so I'm curiously
> waiting for the answer.
> 
> Mury
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, George Cottay wrote:
> 
> > Well, the time has come for me to confess ignorance and possible
> > inattention. 
> >  
> > 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'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?
> >  
> > 
> 
> ----- End of forwarded message from Mury -----
>