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

[Jeff Urmann]

On  Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:32 PM, 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.

Neither company has to renumber if NAT is used.

Which company should renumber?

>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.

Why not make policy so that the current holders of multiple /8-24s have
to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current criteria)?  That
would certainly yield same additional address space, wouldn`t it?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20021002/64afd8e0/attachment.htm>