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

[sigma at smx.pair.com]

Not in the case of a merger, I'm sorry.  I meant in the case of the two
companies wanting to connect their networks.

Kevin

> 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 -----
> > 
>